Gun owners living in pro-gun States (They Agree with the 2nd Amendment)

[Bikeman315]

Great post John. Yes there are always three sides to every story. When a mass shooting does occur everyone is made sick by it. Not even the most radical pro gun person thinks that shooting children is a good thing. The problem is blame and where to put it. People need to ability to place blame before they can move on. The constant in all of these shootings is the gun therefore that's where the blame goes. But as many have said, the majority of these shootings have been done with legally purchased guns. I'm not sure there is a good solution. We do need some regulations but we also need to protect people's rights. I do not see anything happening in today's inflamed society. Something really bad is going to need to happen for gun control to get back on the front page. I'm hoping that doesn't happen.

Sponsored

 

[Ruby_Ruby19]

Great post John. Yes there are always three sides to every story. When a mass shooting does occur everyone is made sick by it. Not even the most radical pro gun person thinks that shooting children is a good thing. The problem is blame and where to put it. People need to ability to place blame before they can move on. The constant in all of these shootings is the gun therefore that's where the blame goes. But as many have said, the majority of these shootings have been done with legally purchased guns. I'm not sure there is a good solution. We do need some regulations but we also need to protect people's rights. I do not see anything happening in today's inflamed society. Something really bad is going to need to happen for gun control to get back on the front page. I'm hoping that doesn't happen.

Totally agree - and listen im a huge gun person. Carry everyday, and I understand how fortunate I am to be able to do so.

People have to remember that the 2nd amendment is one day going to be under the microscope again. If we don't ditch the talk of "I want to be able to shoot illegals" and "I teach my kids to shoot people" these rights we have will dissappear.

I used to be so hard line on this issue, but man with how society is today we have to be able to talk to people to get them to come on board.

 

[95CobraR]

..We do need some regulations but we also need to protect people's rights...

We already have The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.".

It seems simple to me. The Supreme Court has ruled that some regions, like Chicago, can make it difficult to carry a gun. Chicago leads the nation in murder rates.

The liberal establishment thinks everything is good once they get rid of the guns. Good luck with that.

 

[Bikeman315]

We already have The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.".

It seems simple to me. The Supreme Court has ruled that some regions, like Chicago, can make it difficult to carry a gun. Chicago leads the nation in murder rates.

The liberal establishment thinks everything is good once they get rid of the guns. Good luck with that.

Why are you wasting space with the same response over and over again?

The second amendment protects the right of citizens to purchase and keep guns. I was referring to the rest of the population who have right not to be killed by those guns. That's called the first amendment.

And stop with the Liberal this & Liberal that, BS. How would you like to be classified as a murdering criminal because, well aren't all guns owners murdering criminals? It's so easy to put an entire group into one pot just to make some ridiculous point. Yes there are some on the left that would like to ban all guns and repeal the second amendment. And there are also many who do not believe this. There are also many Independents and Republicans that feel the exact same way.

At the end of the day, the second amendment is not going anywhere and no one is banning all guns from being sold or used.

 

[95CobraR]

Why are you wasting space with the same response over and over again?

The second amendment protects the right of citizens to purchase and keep guns. I was referring to the rest of the population who have right not to be killed by those guns. That's called the first amendment.

And stop with the Liberal this & Liberal that, BS....

I also agree with the First Amendment which allows Americans the right to express opinions without government censorship or control. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.

I am trying to explain to you "nancy pelosi" folks that you are all wrong with your ideas on Constitutional Laws of Our Republic Nation.

 

[Bikeman315]

I also agree with the First Amendment which allows Americans the right to express opinions without government censorship or control. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.

I am trying to explain to you "nancy pelosi" folks that you are all wrong with your ideas on Constitutional Laws of Our Republic Nation.

See Doc, that's the issue. Trying to lump everyone together just because they might have a different opinion. "you "nancy pelosi" folk" Just because a person feels that there should be some governmental control of something doesn't make them a "Nancy Pelosi" person. Or a Donald Trump person for that matter. I will only speak for myself. I'm not a Nancy Pelosi person and I do believe that some controls are necessary.

 

[95CobraR]

See Doc, that's the issue. Trying to lump everyone together just because they might have a different opinion. "you "nancy pelosi" folk" Just because a person feels that there should be some governmental control of something doesn't make them a "Nancy Pelosi" person. Or a Donald Trump person for that matter. I will only speak for myself. I'm not a Nancy Pelosi person and I do believe that some controls are necessary.

Yes, it is part of the Liberal Nation to restrict our Rights.

I say most of you progressive liberals may seem calm here, but you would like to take over our Country since you folks are so correct?

I strongly disagree with you and the corrupt media. Why else would you argue with law abiding conservative folks that own a gun?

 

[Phoenix]

I also agree with the First Amendment which allows Americans the right to express opinions without government censorship or control. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.

I am trying to explain to you "nancy pelosi" folks that you are all wrong with your ideas on Constitutional Laws of Our Republic Nation.

Why is everything you post the most cringe things I’ve ever seen. Over/under how many Donald Trump articles of clothing do you own? 6?

stop. You aren’t helping gun owners.

signed,

2A absolutist.

 

[Bikeman315]

Yes, it is part of the Liberal Nation to restrict our Rights.

You are drinking some mighty potent Kool-Aid there. Listen you can believe what you want but that statement is flat out not true. That's what you are being fed by the right. What else do you think they want you to believe? How much money do you think the NRA would bring in if they did not perpetuate the us vs. them rhetoric? They have been doing this for years so this isn't a Trump thing. No one is taking your guns, no one is taking away your rights. Your paranoia is feeding a cause that doesn't exist.

 

[Bikeman315]

Just an interesting read. How far we've come. Or haven't!

Two Parties Emerge

The ELECTION OF 1796 was the first election in American history where political CANDIDATES at the local, state, and national level began to run for OFFICE as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

This was a stunning new phenomenon that shocked most of the older leaders of the Revolutionary Era. Even Madison, who was one of the earliest to see the value of political parties, believed that they would only serve as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections. The older leaders failed to understand the dynamic new conditions that had been created by the importance of popular sovereignty — democracy — to the American Revolution. The people now understood themselves as a fundamental force in legitimating government authority. In the modern American political system, voters mainly express themselves through allegiances within a competitive party system. 1796 was the first election where this defining element of modern political life began to appear.

The two parties adopted names that reflected their most cherished values. The Federalists of 1796 attached themselves to the successful campaign in favor of the Constitution and were solid supporters of the federal administration. Although Washington denounced parties as a horrid threat to the republic, his vice president John Adams became the de facto presidential candidate of the Federalists. The party had its strongest support among those who favored Hamilton's policies. Merchants, creditors and urban artisans who built the growing commercial economy of the northeast provided its most dedicated supporters and strongest regional support.

The opposition party adopted the name DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICANS, which suggested that they were more fully committed to extending the Revolution to ordinary people. The supporters of the Democratic-Republicans (often referred to as the Republicans) were drawn from many segments of American society and included farmers throughout the country with high popularity among German and Scots-Irish ethnic groups. Although it effectively reached ordinary citizens, its key leaders were wealthy southern tobacco elites like Jefferson and Madison. While the Democratic-Republicans were more diverse, the Federalists were wealthier and carried more prestige, especially by association with the retired Washington.

The 1796 election was waged with uncommon intensity. Federalists thought of themselves as the "friends of order" and good government. They viewed their opponents as dangerous radicals who would bring the anarchy of the French Revolution to America.

The Democratic-Republicans despised Federalist policies. According to one Republican-minded New York newspaper, the Federalists were "aristocrats, endeavoring to lay the foundations of monarchical government, and Republicans [were] the real supporters of independence, friends to equal rights, and warm advocates of free elective government."

Clearly there was little room for compromise in this hostile environment.

The outcome of the presidential election indicated the close balance between the two sides. New England strongly favored Adams, while Jefferson overwhelmingly carried the southern states. The key to the election lay in the mid-Atlantic colonies where party organizations were the most fully developed. Adams ended up narrowly winning in the electoral college 71 to 68. A sure sign of the great novelty of political parties was that the Constitution had established that the runner-up in the presidential election would become the vice president.

John Adams took office after a harsh campaign and narrow victory. His political opponent Jefferson served as second in command.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes, it is part of the Liberal Nation to restrict our Rights.

I say most of you progressive liberals may seem calm here, but you would like to take over our Country since you folks are so correct?

I strongly disagree with you and the corrupt media. Why else would you argue with law abiding conservative folks that own a gun?

PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME YOU THINK BOTH OF THESE SCREENSHOTS ARE REAL

psst.

CONSERVATIVES WANT TO RESTRICT RIGHTS TOO.

 

[Timeless]

CONSERVATIVES WANT TO RESTRICT RIGHTS TOO.

Please expand upon this. Curious what rights true conservatives wish to restrict. Please correlate these rights to the constitution/bill of rights. Thanks.

 

[Phoenix]

Please expand upon this. Curious what rights true conservatives wish to restrict. Please correlate these rights to the constitution/bill of rights. Thanks.

HR 838. Lots of Rs currently sponsoring the bill.

bump stock ban.

red flag laws.

 

[Timeless]

HR 838. Lots of Rs currently sponsoring the bill.

bump stock ban.

red flag laws.

Rs are not the same as true conservatives.

That being said HR 838 does seem to be trying to find a way to detect possible events before they happen. Problem as always is giving government the power and the people that will inevitable abuse is.

Red flag laws basically the same. If someone could prove these would have helped from historical shootings then it might make more sense.

Bump stock was an inevitable ban based on events in Vegas. No one that is pro gun really seems affected by this.

 

[Phoenix]

Rs are not the same as true conservatives.

i know this, but i doubt OP does.

That being said HR 838 does seem to be trying to find a way to detect possible events before they happen. Problem as always is giving government the power and the people that will inevitable abuse is.

agreed 100%

Red flag laws basically the same. If someone could prove these would have helped from historical shootings then it might make more sense.

its a 4th amendment violation and ususally results deaths. re: duncan lemp case.

Bump stock was an inevitable ban based on events in Vegas. No one that is pro gun really seems affected by this.

we werent affected by it but it set a precedent that excecutive branch can just deem an accessory a felony to possess and thats a very slippery slope. bump stocks are terrible but many conservatives supported it simply because they didnt use them and felt people didnt need them.

Sponsored