Alexis. I visit the US every year, several times and have done since the mid 1970s. I have never been caught up in any violence nor seen any bad incidents. I think you are over reacting.
Printable View
Alexis. I visit the US every year, several times and have done since the mid 1970s. I have never been caught up in any violence nor seen any bad incidents. I think you are over reacting.
Looks like "The Sleeping Giant" doesn't want to crawl out of bed long enough to cure it's ills yet. So many, so many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne
Gee, that's a shame. :roll: I suppose we'll have to try and manage somehow.
I dunno.. I know a number of trans people that have had considerable grief living in the uSA. I also know a number of people that get hassled every time they try to enter the USA simply because they are trans..Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
The USA is a country where a person has no rights.. especially a foreigner in the USA.. zero rights at all..
I'm sure if you're some squeaky clean blue collar type then Homeland won't hassle you.. however.. if you're a transsexual who's changed their name, sex, etc and have a criminal record.. expect that you will be detained, searched and violated..
It's not my imagination that a trans friend of mine with no criminal record was detained for 6 hours at the border and then denied entry.. She did nothing wrong and they detained her.. The border guards called her dude, him, he etc.. They strip searched her without a female officer being there even though her Canadian passport said female on it..
Pieces of shit.. Canadian border guards do not do this to trans people..
Yes.. you will.. I saw all the sights in the USA years ago.. The only thing new is more corruption, marshal law, hate and segregation of the poor..Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower
Maybe some day the USA might figure it's shit out and the people wake up to what their government is doing.. I'm not about to hold my breath tho. better chance of WW3 happening than the USA Cleptocrats getting voted out..
Here's a handy little guide for everyone:
If you think guns enhance your manliness, consider this
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...his-penis-off/
There is a reason that it is supposed to be angled when putting it in front part of your pants. :dead-1:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
If only we could count on the stupidity of gun enthusiasts to stop at shooting their own penises off, or shooting their butts, their feet etc. But the grim record shows their carelessness, and their irrational fear of others knows no bounds. There's a reason to regulate firearms and ban carry in public spaces.
It's like when someone forgets to set the brake on their vehicle...or forget to check to make sure the brake (or other safety device) is working correctly. If that vehicle rolls away and damages something (or someone), who is held responsible?
Apparently it's quite common
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_3767528.html
Amazing, given that their dicks make such small targets. Just proves they're subconsciously trying to use their guns as penis substitutes. Bless their little hearts.
A Catholic priest in Phoenix Az. spied a derelict attempting to steal a security camera. There was a confrontation and the priest was hit with a metal object the derelict picked up on the spot. So the priest retreated to his rooms while the derelict continued to try to pry the security camera from its moorings. Out of danger, no ground to stand what did the priest do? Did he call the police? No he got his gun and returned to the scene. What was just a property crime in progress is about to escalate to murder because of the presence of a gun. Once again there’s a confrontation. The priest loses the gun to the derelict, who while running away with it, encounters a second priest. Frightened, the derelict fires the weapon and now derelict is promoted from burglar to murderer. Nice. Of course the promotion is not the big deal, the big deal is that someone is dead who wouldn't be if that gun had just been left in the desk drawer; or never in the Church at all. That’s another fine mess guns got us into.
http://www.kiiitv.com/story/25760622...atholic-church
Sad story - let this be a reminder to us.
I worked for a catholic church for 2 1/ years in Seattle, st James cathedral
Father Ryan, Father Brant and Father Ward and sister Mary. All very nice, giving souls and very open minded too! I love and cherish the fact that I had the opportunity to work as part of there staff and attend mass.
Nonetheless, if either one of them from the parish had behaved the way this priest did (grabbing a gun and confronting people) robbers or not robbers. You don't do something like that.
Guns are not to blame for gun violence, people are to be blamed. I support the right to bare arms regardless of how many people are killed by them.
People do stupid things all the time. Guns just make stupid people all the more hazardous.
Just last year twenty six year old children were gunned down in four minutes and nothing happened, except gun nut doubling down on their right maintain personal arsenals. Other western countries have solved this problem. It's time we take lives of our children more seriously than our adult toys.
I don't think there is any doubt that guns are testosterone-related, little girls play with dolls and little boys play with toy guns, armymen, cops and robbers.
So gun control is like penis control. If you sterilized the half of the population with the lowest IQs, you would probably solve the gun problem, as well as a hundred other problems that plague the nation.
And don't give me that Nazi crap!!! Hitler studied how we put Indians on Reservations when he was planning his Concentration Camps. So a little sterilization powder in the water supplies to the ghettoes, trailer parks, prisons, and social services buildings, and in twenty years we'd all be on the path to being too thin and too rich. Nip it in the bud, Andy. Nip it in the bud!!
So going along with the theme of this thread......
I picked up a used, mint, Smith & Wesson M&P .40c today. It's sweet!!! Just blasted 100 through it. Now need to pick out a couple of holsters for it and practice more.
Oh my dick feels bigger already !!!!! Bbbwwwaahhhhhaaaaa
Just tuck it in your waistband.Quote:
Originally Posted by 95racer
You have a dick?? I didn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by 95racer
Please feel free to discuss
"It was an honest mistake officer. When she screamed, 'Pull it out and shoot it on my tits,' I thought she meant my gun."
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I prefer to secure my guns better than that. Tucking in waistband means rubber grips or a bunch of rubber bands on the grip. Guns sliding down and out of your pant legs onto the floor can cause unnecessary issues.
To tuck or not to tuck. That is the question.
Whether 'tis enhancing in one's own mind
To suffer the risk of manhood
Or take arms holstered into the public square
To exercise an ancient and misunderstood right,
One that is a daily source of heartache
And causeth many of us innocently to die.
Who would bear arms would that others die of them
Put but himself and his family at death's dark door,
And thereby puts their dreams to sleep at muzzle's end.
That's funny.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I prefer not to tuck when ever possible.. Wear a long loose fitting top that just covers it so you can't tell.. way more comfy than trying to hide it..
But sometimes it needs to be concealed..
Eventually.. I hope there is some type of regulation of firearms in the USA.. Then you can be more civil like us Canadians and just use a knife or your bare hands rather than waiting 6 months for a firearms license..
:banana:
I live just outside the city limit in the middle of bum fuck ohio. The police are 20 minutes away from me, Hail Satan for my double barrel 10 gauge!!!
If you are intellectually inclined, and reason and logic are not only your guide, but the guide you feel everyone should follow, then it just follows to reason that guns hurt much more than they save.
Lots of Republicans think Democrats talk down to them, just because they went to some fancy schamcy college.
Lots of Republicans think Democrats not only want to take their guns, they want them to hug trees and suck cocks.
Since half the country is PRO-GUN (or whatever) it seems like game over. Unless you want gestapo brownshirts to start kicking down doors. You almost have to hope a gang of 10 year olds attacks a city, with automatic weapons, and kills thousands of people, that might be the only thing that shakes people enough to yell for stricter control of guns.
At least in Iraq they shoot people in the name of Allah, over here we kill people for stupid personal problems, or accidentally, or for street cred.
As a country, we may be crazier than Iraq. Or, maybe Wise Men shun the Govt for good reason. Maybe all this gun violence is Justice, USA-GOD Style.
I know whenever I'm kinda lost, and don't know which way to turn, I ask myself "What would Jack Bauer do?"
I know bum fuck Ohio rather well. No need for a double barrel 10 gauge there, nor any other kind of gun. Relax, set aside the paranoia and read a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erika1487
Except a majority of Americans are for more stringent regulations governing the ownership of firearms, access, carry, magazine capacity, etc. A decade ago over 50% of homes had a firearm. Today it's below 40%. What stands in the way of sanity is not the populace, but NRA and gun lobbyists.Quote:
Since half the country is PRO-GUN (or whatever) it seems like game over.
Amen brother.Quote:
If you are intellectually inclined, and reason and logic are not only your guide, but the guide you feel everyone should follow, then it just follows to reason that guns hurt much more than they save.
I've heard both FDR and Obama say "You've got to make me do it" In other words, people come up to the President and say WE"VE got to do this or that, when in fact the Prez can't do anything until both the House and Senate sends him a Bill to sign or veto. In that sense, the people have to yell louder than the gun lobby, but they don't. Congress doesn't do anything unless it has a gun to it's head.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
So true. Even though the majority are for stricter firearm legislation they aren't as loud as the belligerent gun toting minority. Sane people have better things to do with their time and their money than spend it lobbying congress on a single issue. With gun nuts its an avocation__ writing letters in local newspapers, trolling comment sections, facebooking their diatribes, writing representatatives, buying gun magazines thus financially supporting the industry, buying more guns, toting them in public spaces__ it's exactly what they want to be doing with their time. Ya want to tell 'em, "Get a fucking life and stop supporting the taking of life."Quote:
In that sense, the people have to yell louder than the gun lobby, but they don't. Congress doesn't do anything unless it has a gun to it's head.
My shotgun sets on the mantle, unloaded. I am reading a good book "Our Bodies Ourselves The Boston Women's health book collective"Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
People immigrate to this country for
$7.50 minimum wage,
Walmart,
and Shopper's Food Warehouse.
That's the bottom line.
Now WHERE to draw the line on selling guns, cigarettes, beer and wine, sugar-cereal, it's not clear if that is the individual's job, or the government 's job.
The LONG-RANGE goal of Obamacare is going to be EASING OUT lung cancer and diabetes by regulating or taxing smokes and sugary foods into non-existence. Both big business and ordinary Americans love cigarettes and Super Big Gulps. And .44 Magnums.
Loving what's not good for you is the Right of Every American.....
that's why Health Insurance costs are so high.
And Murder Rates.
Where do you draw the line?
Dildo-wielding boys teach gun safety in viral ad: ‘If they find it, they’ll play with it’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/2...-play-with-it/
If it has any similarity to a penis, they'll play with it...and I don't mean just the kids but the Dad's too. Don't embarrass yourself, leave the toy penises at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Ya, nothing bad can happen in rural areas :rolleyes:
Thinking that certain areas have no crime could get you hurt.
I live in a rural area. I know there's crime. You just don't need a gun to deal with it.
Fascinating article on what the constitution REALLY says about guns... and interesting to read that the NRA has a quotation from the Constitution relating to guns in its lobby - but with the key phrase abut well regulated militias omitted!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ichael-waldman
The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does
Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an unlimited right to guns.
—By Hannah Levintova | Thu Jun. 19, 2014 6:00 AM EDT
"To the framers, that phrase 'a well-regulated militia' was really critical," says Michael Waldman. The Shelby Star/Jeff Melton/AP
Less than a month after the December 2012 Newtown massacre, the National Rifle Association's then-president, David Keene, warned that the new White House task force on gun violence would "do everything they can to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, to essentially make the Second Amendment meaningless." Three weeks ago, after a killer shot three people and wounded eight near Santa Barbara, California, conservative activist "Joe the Plumber" posted an open letter to the victims' families. "Your dead kids," he wrote, "don't trump my Constitutional rights."*
As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.
In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.
This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. "We're not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do," he says. "How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That's certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America."
Mother Jones: What inspired you to write this book?
Michael Waldman: I started the book after Newtown. There was such anguish about gun violence and we were debating, once again, what to do about it. But this was the first time we were having that conversation in the context of a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects individual rights of gun owners. And now every time people debated guns, every time people talked about Newtown, they talked about the Second Amendment. I wanted to see what the real story was: What the amendment had meant over the years, and what we could learn from that.
MJ: What preconceived notions about the Second Amendment did the history that you uncovered confirm or debunk?
MW: There are surprises in this book for people who support gun control, and people who are for gun rights. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was following his doctrine of originalism. But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.
"You can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection."
MJ: You point out that the NRA has the Second Amendment inscribed in their lobby, but with the militia clause removed.
MW: Yes. That was first reported in an article in Mother Jones in the '90s. But I didn't want to rely on just that, so one of my colleagues went out to the NRA headquarters to look at the lobby. And she had her picture taken in front of the sign so we could confirm that it was actually still there!
MJ: Based on the history you've uncovered, do you think the founders understood there to be an unwritten individual right to arms that they didn't include in the Constitution?
MW: Yes. And that might be noteworthy for some. There were plenty of guns. There was the right to defend yourself, which was part of English common law handed down from England. But there were also gun restrictions at the same time. There were many. There were limits, for example, on where you could store gunpowder. You couldn't have a loaded gun in your house in Boston. There were lots of limits on who could own guns for all different kinds of reasons. There was an expectation that you should be able to own a gun. But they didn't think they were writing that expectation into the Constitution with the Second Amendment.
MJ: So then why focus on the Second Amendment and not the English Bill of Rights or other things the framers drew on that more clearly address individual gun ownership?
MW: We are not governed today, in 2014, by British common law. Law evolved, the country evolved. It was a very rural place. There were no cities. There were no police forces. It was a completely different way of living. So gun rights activists turned this into a constitutional crusade. Those who want more guns and fewer restrictions realized they could gain some higher ground if they claimed the Constitution.
MJ: You write that throughout most of the 20th century, the courts stayed out of the gun laws debate. What changed that led them back in?
MW: What changed was the NRA. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Berger said that the idea that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to gun ownership was "a fraud" on the public. That was the consensus, that was the conventional wisdom.
"Those who want more guns and fewer restrictions realized they could gain some higher ground if they claimed the Constitution."
The NRA has been around for a long time. It used to be an organization that focused on hunters and on training. In 1977, at the NRA's annual meeting, activists pushed out the leadership and installed new leaders who were very intense, very dogmatic, and very focused on the Second Amendment as their cause. It was called the "Revolt at Cincinnati." From there, the NRA and its allies waged a 30-year legal campaign to change the way the courts and the country saw the Second Amendment. And they started with scholarship. They supported a lot of scholars and law professors. They elected politicians. They changed the positions of agencies of government. They got the Justice Department to reverse its position on what the amendment meant. And then and only then did they go to court. So by the time the Supreme Court ruled, it sort of felt like a ripe apple from the tree.
They also moved public opinion. Now it's a pretty widely held view that it's an individual right. It's funny, I was just on a panel with Alan Gura, who argued the Heller case. And, you know, I gave him credit for being part of a really significant effort that changed the way we see the Constitution. What's funny is that he and other gun rights people deny it! They say, "No, this is what everyone thought all along, for 200-plus years."
MJ: What was the impact of the NRA's sponsorship of Second Amendment legal scholarship?
MW: They certainly supported a lot of it. The way it works in constitutional law is that legal scholarship plays a pretty big role. So there became a rather deafening roar of the pro-individual gun ownership model: They were publishing and reinforcing each other. Some of it was very useful, and I cite it in the book. And some of it, when you look at some of the claims, they are easily punctured. It reminded me of the people who write movie posters, in terms of pulling quotes out of context. Like this Thomas Jefferson quote—"One loves to possess arms." It is in serious law review articles. It's presented as proof of what the founders really meant. But what happened was Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to George Washington, saying, "Remember I sent you a bunch of those letters from when I was Secretary of State? Could you send them back to me? I think I'm going to get attacked for this position I made. I want to be able to defend myself: 'One loves to possess arms,' even though one hopes not to use them." It's a metaphor! But it's in these law review articles. It's funny! When you go to the NRA website, it's still there. You can buy a T-shirt that has the quote!
MJ: How is it that such questionable scholarship went so far—all the way to the Supreme Court?
MW: You'll have to ask the Supreme Court. The thing about the Heller decision that was especially concerning to me was that Justice Scalia said this was the "vindication" of his approach of originalism. But when it actually came time to doing the history, he skipped over the actual writing and purpose of the Second Amendment. Out of 64 pages [in the decision], only 2 deal with the militias. Which is what the founders thought they were talking about. One of the things that I hope people take away from this is that the original meaning is always important, but it is not the only way to interpret the Constitution.
MJ: What are your thoughts on the historical argument that the Second Amendment is a civil right protected under the 14th Amendment?
MW: After the Civil War, there were a lot of freed slaves who were terrorized by white vigilantes. One of the purposes of some of the framers of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that they get guns. Now, the Reconstruction government that enforced the 14th Amendment also had very strong gun laws, such as prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons. Just like the colonial period and the early revolutionary period, it was a very different time. What you had in the South was low-grade guerrilla warfare between the races. It's hard to draw the lesson of what we should do now, in our urban society where assault weapons are available for sale, from the Reconstruction era.
MJ: You write that in Heller, there was a big shift in how the case was argued: There were many references to colonial America, and very little about current gun laws and current patterns of violence. Is this the new normal for gun cases?
MW: This is the triumph, in some ways, of originalism—Justice Scalia's intellectual triumph in changing the way people make arguments in front of the Supreme Court. And yes, there are some other cases where it's been pretty common. What's interesting is that since Heller, there have been dozens of cases in lower courts. Heller said: Yes, there is an individual right, but it can be limited. And the extent of the limits wasn't really clear. Well, dozens of judges have ruled since then, and overwhelmingly, they have upheld district gun laws. They've said, "Yes, there's an individual right, but society, too, has a right to protect itself." So maybe Heller's importance is not so great. And as this judicial consensus has developed across the country to uphold gun laws, we haven't yet heard from the Supreme Court one more time. So I think the Supreme Court isn't done yet.
I doubt you would hear one person in the Country object to guns and hunting dogs in 1800, or in any Country.
I've read about two tribes in Africa living a hundred miles apart whose cultures were different as night and day, but I have no idea why the murder rate per capita is so different in the USA compared to Canada. Maybe there are more SNAKES in the USA (all kinds)
Maybe it's because when you have some spare time after work and tending to personal business you go to the gym and get on the treadmill for an hour. In Europe they take the entire month of August off.
I think Americans like to be wound up, half cocked, almost.
But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's no evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio—like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. And each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate. And they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or, you know, anti-trade sentiment [as] a way to explain their frustrations.
-Obama 2008
Thanks Prospero, for the Waldman interview. Unfortunately, once the Supreme Court meddles with and muddies the interpretation, it creates precedents and potential applications that make it difficult to turn back the clock. This conservative activist court is doing more damage to this nation than any outside force could ever muster.
second amendment is clear and your interpretation of it is incorrect. Once people start interpreting my freedoms that's when it gets crazy. Do something about the violence on tv in film and video games guns have been around all 200 plus years of this countrys history the senseless violence has been around the roughly the same amount of time as grand theft auto generation. Funny how no one ever shot up schools the first 200 years of this country history isn't it? Even during the nations bloddiest times cival war ww1 ww2 The media doesn't report how the last school shooting was stopped in 20 seconds because they had an armed guard there. Funny how no one messes with politicians kids you know why? there are people there with guns guarding them. So look we have enough unemployed military folks looking for work why not hire a few to guard our kids? no that makes sense lets take guns away from all the law abiding folks that makes more sense. right ill get back to you on that!!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, you're correct in that it’s pretty clear. The “right” to keep and bear arms (i.e. flintlock muskets and knives) is provisional; dependent upon the State maintenance of a citizen’s militia directly armed by the citizenry. Those kind of State militia vanished a century ago.
Make no mistake. You do have a federally granted right to keep and bear arms, but only because of the distinctly liberal, past and current interpretations the supreme court has bestowed upon the Second Amendment.
If there ever was an incident where a good guy with a firearm saved the day, it be all over the news. Why? Because reporters are whores for bylines.
Have a Happy 4th of July. Don’t forget to direct your celebratory fire directly overhead, as true to vertical as you can get it.