If I only had a gun! Friday 10 pm.

[emmett]

Don't miss this special feature documentary by Diane Sawyer produced by the ABC division of the US Government News Agency, Friday at 10pm on 20/20. I especially recommend this program for Liberals and Socialists.

This program looks to answer the question of "If only I had a gun". It will display how law abiding citizens are on a rampid quest to obtain guns and use them to prepretrate crimes in the United States. I'm sure they will set out to prove that just mere ownership of your own gun causes you to want to shoot many people and get your name in the headlines.

Yup...don't miss this sure to be informative documentary folks. Cancel your Friday night plans immediately and muster at your sets to recieve this valuable indoctrination in fear provided curteousy of the US Government News Services. I personally can't wait.......how about you?

[crin63]

I just cant shake loose of my previous engagement, I'll be at church.

Do you think it would be okay to record it on my DVR and watch it later? I mean this has to be an honest and open review of the facts right!

[emmett]

I just cant shake loose of my previous engagement, I'll be at church.

Do you think it would be okay to record it on my DVR and watch it later? I mean this has to be an honest and open review of the facts right!


Its OK with me however what if there is something on there that is so informative that just the delay of its learning will result in your not being properly educated? :laugh2:


I laughed when I saw the commercial a minute ago. Over the next four years it should prove interesting to watch our government use this resource so cleverly as in this regard. I would bet our government turned backflips to learn of this presentation and will bend over backwards to make every resource they can available to Sawyer. I would even bet upon learning of the broadcast, the propaganda started to fly.

The advertisement gave indication of the theme. It showed a courtroom where a gunman had opened fire (dramatized), everyone in the room looked almost identical and the question was, "If you had a gun....would you know what to do with it?" Then it showed a cameraman view looking around the room trying to find the shooter.....who of course was orchestrated to look like everyone else in the crowd. Absolute propaganda!

First of all, guns are not allowed in courtrooms. Remember the deputies up front who search you when a nickle sets off the alarm on the walk thru device? Come on! I laughed my ass off Crin.

[Binky]

Don't miss this special feature documentary by Diane Sawyer produced by the ABC division of the US Government News Agency, Friday at 10pm on 20/20. I especially recommend this program for Liberals and Socialists.

This program looks to answer the question of "If only I had a gun". It will display how law abiding citizens are on a rampid quest to obtain guns and use them to prepretrate crimes in the United States. I'm sure they will set out to prove that just mere ownership of your own gun causes you to want to shoot many people and get your name in the headlines.

Yup...don't miss this sure to be informative documentary folks. Cancel your Friday night plans immediately and muster at your sets to recieve this valuable indoctrination in fear provided curteousy of the US Government News Services. I personally can't wait.......how about you?


Well, apparently it wasn't important to me because your posting is the first I've heard of it. I don't put much stock in what is spieled over the news, for the most part. It seems it's getting more difficult each day to get the real news rather than the bullpucky they want us to hear or read.

[emmett]

Well, apparently it wasn't important to me because your posting is the first I've heard of it. I don't put much stock in what is spieled over the news, for the most part. It seems it's getting more difficult each day to get the real news rather than the bullpucky they want us to hear or read.

See there Bink, it's folks like you that they will be targeting! Soon it will start to be the order of the day to accuse folks like you of being unconcerned for the safety of Americans.

I bet you are member of the NRA too.:laugh2:

[emmett]

I predict not one mention in this program of how a senior citizen used a legally obtained weapon to defend themselves from the threat of a killer / burgler etc,....

[stephanie]

I think the next documentary that Sawyer does should be.."if only some of us had a brain"..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/Biden_brain.jpg

[crin63]

The other thing I noticed lately is that every shooting has been headline news.

Makes me think someone out there has an agenda.

[sgtdmski]

How could this latest shooting in NY have happened? I don't understand. NY has some of the stictest gun control laws in the country. I thought Gun Control Laws prevent this type of shootings to occur. (Dripping with Sarcasm)

dmk

[Silver]

I'll bet the show is gonna tell us an honest to God fact.....

65,000,000 legal gun owners didn't shoot anyone last month.....

[Binky]

See there Bink, it's folks like you that they will be targeting! Soon it will start to be the order of the day to accuse folks like you of being unconcerned for the safety of Americans.

I bet you are member of the NRA too.:laugh2:


Hey, Emmie, I am concerned for the safety of Americans. I just get tired of hearing the same old stuff on the news. I don't always believe everything they tell me.

No, I'm not a member of the NRA, but we do have some guns. I believe in our right to bear arms.

[glockmail]

If I only had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed by that asshole and his gang back in high school.

[Jagger]

There is no clear unambiguous individual right to keep and bear arms in the U. S. Constitution.

[Little-Acorn]

If I only had a gun I wouldn't have been robbed by that asshole and his gang back in high school.

If you and your buddies had been allowed to have guns, then the aforementioned asshole might not have gone into the robbery business, knowing that some of their victims might be armed and in a mood to object. Even if you yourself didn't happen to be carrying that particular day. The asshole doesn't know that, and so might choose a different line of work.

A win-win all around.

[glockmail]

There is no clear unambiguous individual right to keep and bear arms in the U. S. Constitution. That's not the way the Constitution works. The Government doesn't "give rights" to the People; the People "grant powers" to the government. It's right there in the preamble. :slap:

[Jagger]

That's not the way the Constitution works. The Government doesn't "give rights" to the People; the People "grant powers" to the government. It's right there in the preamble. :slap:

There is still no clear unambiguous individual right to keep and bear arms in the U. S. Constitution.

[glockmail]

There is still no clear unambiguous individual right to keep and bear arms in the U. S. Constitution. There's no right to eat bread either. Again, the Constitution doesn't work that way.

[Little-Acorn]

This program looks to answer the question of "If only I had a gun". It will display how law abiding citizens are on a rampid quest to obtain guns and use them to prepretrate crimes in the United States. I'm sure they will set out to prove that just mere ownership of your own gun causes you to want to shoot many people and get your name in the headlines.


Actually, law-abiding citizens who own guns, use them far more frequently to deter crimes than to commit them. A number of studies, including those by Attorney General Janet Reno in Clinton's Dept. of Justice, found that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are used to stop or prevent crimes, anywhere from 1.5 million to 3 million times every hear.

There's never a cop around when you need one. But you can make sure there's a gun around when you need one... until the leftists start banning them from law-abiding citizens.

And at least in areas where guns aren't banned from law-abiding citizens, crooks will be aware that the guy they're about to attack, might be able to shoot back. And so they will be a little less likely to do their deed in the first place. For those that do it anyway, an armed citizen is far more likely to stop the crime, and turn the bad guy in to the law, than an unarmed one.

[Mr. P]

Bump...because this show by a liberal gun hater, Diane Sawyer, is tomorrow night. Check it out and see how it's presented...fair and unbiased...or slanted as hell?

[Jagger]

There's no right to eat bread either. Again, the Constitution doesn't work that way. There's no right to establish an Air Force, either.

[emmett]

There is still no clear unambiguous individual right to keep and bear arms in the U. S. Constitution.

The US Supreme Court says different.

[glockmail]

There's no right to establish an Air Force, either. Sure there is- it was originally part of the army.

[Kathianne]

Sure there is- it was originally part of the army.

I think that would be Navy?

[Mr. P]

I think that would be Navy?

Nope, it was Army.

[Kathianne]

Nope, it was Army.

I'll defer, thinking you know better. Still seems to me my take was correct.

[Mr. P]

I'll defer, thinking you know better. Still seems to me my take was correct.

You have heard of the Army Air Corp, right? That's what became the Air Force.

[emmett]

Ah...Kathy....it was Army. The Marine Corp is a part of the Navy. Coast Guard also in peacetime. Just so you know.

[Kathianne]

Ok, I'll defer to those who know better. On the other hand if something crops up showing I was right. you all eat and die. :laugh2:

[emmett]

Ok, I'll defer to those who know better. On the other hand if something crops up showing I was right. you all eat and die. :laugh2:



:lol: :clap:

[sgtdmski]

There is no clear unambiguous individual right to keep and bear arms in the U. S. Constitution.

You are right, however, the Supreme Court in Heller v DC has stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and according to you liberal types, the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says.

Furthermore, one could argue that the right to keep and bear arms was a right that was existing and established before the Constitution, and thus it is an individual right and that the Constitution established what the Government could not do to that right, in this case the government cannot infringe that right. Meaning the government cannot break, disobey, violate, neglect to fulfill, go against, hinder or destroy the right. WOW is it not amazing what that word means.

dmk

[glockmail]

Ok, I'll defer to those who know better. On the other hand if something crops up showing I was right. you all eat and die. :laugh2:

Lineage of the United States Air Force

* Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps August 1, 1907–July 18, 1914
* Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps July 18, 1914–May 20, 1918
* Division of Military Aeronautics May 20, 1918–May 24, 1918
* U.S. Army Air Service May 24, 1918–July 2, 1926
* U.S. Army Air Corps July 2, 1926–June 20, 1941**
* U.S. Army Air Forces June 20, 1941–September 18, 1947**
* United States Air Force September 18, 1947–Present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Corps#Lineage_of_the_United _States_Air_Force

:salute::salute::salute:

[Jagger]

The US Supreme Court says different.

The Supreme Court is stupid.

[Jagger]

Sure there is - it was originally part of the army. Welcome to the Constitution is a living document club.

[glockmail]

Welcome to the Constitution is a living document club. Doesn't require a change to the Constitution, or even a "reinterpretation". Unless you think the Founders intended us to fight wars with muskets on horseback. *shrug*

[Jagger]

You are right, however, the Supreme Court in Heller v DC has stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right... There is no individual right in the Second Amendment.


and according to you liberal types, the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says. The Second Amendment is an ambiguous piece of crap.


Furthermore, one could argue that the right to keep and bear arms was a right that was existing and established before the Constitution There was a common law right to keep arms, but it was joke, because the King could decide what arms you could keep.

[Jagger]

Doesn't require a change to the Constitution, or even a "reinterpretation". It requires a loose interpretation. A very loose interpretation.


the Founders intended us to fight wars with muskets on horseback. The founders intended for us to amend the Constitution if we wanted the government to have the power to have an Air Force.

[Jagger]

Lineage of the United States Air Force

* Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps August 1, 1907–July 18, 1914
* Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps July 18, 1914–May 20, 1918
* Division of Military Aeronautics May 20, 1918–May 24, 1918
* U.S. Army Air Service May 24, 1918–July 2, 1926
* U.S. Army Air Corps July 2, 1926–June 20, 1941**
* U.S. Army Air Forces June 20, 1941–September 18, 1947**
* United States Air Force September 18, 1947–Present

The Constitution still doesn't authorize the government to have an Air Force, unless you subscribe to the Republican/Democrat/Socialist interpretation of the clause that reads as follows:


The Congress shall have Power... to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

[glockmail]

It requires a loose interpretation. A very loose interpretation.

The founders intended for us to amend the Constitution if we wanted the government to have the power to have an Air Force.

A correct interpretation of learned men not afraid of technology is that they would expect the nation that they made to take advantage of technology to defend itself.

[Jagger]

A correct interpretation of learned men not afraid of technology is that they would expect the nation that they made to take advantage of technology to defend itself.

I agree with you. The Constitution is a living document.

[glockmail]

I agree with you. The Constitution is a living document. It should be interpreted as the Founder would have. If you prefer to call that "living" then so be it.