If you both truly have that low of an opinion of the USA…well, the Canadian border isn’t too far from here, and I hear that their immigration books are open. 
I guess I should have qualified the statement a lil’.
“90% of the fucking morons living here in the USA don’t deserve Ron Paul”
The rest of us are cool with having him though…
It wasn’t aired because it was a rude and stupid question. He had a great response though.
Hillary is polarizing, which is exactly what America DOESN’T need right now. She provokes a knee-jerk reaction from most Republicans (and even some Democrats) that would be counterproductive to straightening out all of the current messes.
As for the other two? Edwards matches up to my own personal beliefs slightly better than Obama. As thrilled as I would be with an Edwards victory, I would only be slightly less thrilled if Obama won. Either way, I’m happy.
The black and white thing? Not an issue. It shouldn’t be for anyone, positive or negative.
I have no problem with the right to bear arms.
I have a problem with people believing that right extends to arms far outside my definition of hunting and personal defense weapons. The founding fathers had no idea about TEC-9s.
There should be a federal database of every gun owner and every gun he owns, accessible to all government agencies that deal with crime, and a proper background check before the purchase of ANY firearms or ammunition. Federalize photo identification, social security information, birth records, driving records, and criminal records into one common database and it becomes VERY easy to know who you shouldn’t be selling weapons to.
::cue ridiculous “if we do that, they’ll take our guns” argument::
it’s a 25 month citizenship process.
…and you have to prove you have six months worth of money saved, just in case you don’t find a job immediately.
Yeah, don’t sell them to the people that buy them illegally. Oh wait, by definition they’re buying them anyway. (This is coming from a non-gun owner.)
I could probably live with keeping track of who owns what if it was run properly. But any sentence that starts with “federalize” makes me believe it will be done either inefficiently, improperly, or will become screwed up in some manner.
Your post illustrates a complete and total lack of undestanding of the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.
really?
Yes.
Special Interest group:
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
Founders:
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
-George Washington.
A student of human psychology:
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”
-Sigmund Freud , General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
I never heard Shalerpunk say to take any guns away. He just wants to have a record of every gun owner.
-
A record of law abiding citizens and how many guns they have is a huge waste of time and resources, it will accomplish nothing other than giving a ton of taxpayer money to douchebags sitting and typing at computers for a worthless database.
-
Letting the gov into more of our lives is something none of us needs.
Well put, I agree with you.
Do we need a record of every person who exercises free speech? How about everyone who chooses to exercise a religion, I think we need a database for that too, just in case.
They do a freaking Federal-level criminal background check before selling them to us. What more could anyone ask…except to take them.
words don’t travel with the velocity and mass of bullets.
Reality check: They’re already violating the Constitution.
You don’t think they don’t already have a database of those that speak out or practice certain religions? And they do have access to the information about who has what gun if you’ve bought them in the last 10 years at a store that does ATF 4473.
But well-delivered suggestions can cause charismatic people to make others do harm to their fellow man with or without access to legal firearms.
I never heard Shalerpunk say to take any guns away. He just wants to have a record of every gun owner
You must have missed his comment about “the founding fathers didn’t know about TEC-9s”…
The Patriot Act destroys our rights against search and seizure, which technically makes it unconstitutional, and thereby illegal as well as invalid, but I don’t hear any public outcry.
The sheep are well-fed and entertain themselves with American Idol and crappy beer.
hast thou never had thy phrase “thy pen is mightier than thy sword” fall upon thine deaf ears?
My point, Shaler Punk, was that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, or firearm collecting, or even self defense from criminals.
It’s purpose was and is to re-affirm the right of the populace to possess arms used for armed resistance against a potentially oppressive government- so while your use of the TEC-9 as an example of a “nasty assault weapon” that should be banned is kind of humorous (since the TEC is a certified piece of shit), assault/military weapons are EXACTLY what the Second Amendment is designed to protect.