Time for a change -- to the Constitution

[stephanie]

reading this hurt my brain...:laugh2:

by Melanie Springer Mock, guest opinion Monday July 27, 2009, 8:30 AM

The drumbeat of discontent from the so-called "birthers" has started again. Nearly six months after President Barack Obama was inaugurated, fringe members of the conservative party are finding public platforms to argue that Obama has no right to the presidency because he does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate.

Never mind the bigoted undertones of these claims, the unspoken assertion that because Obama does not look like "us," he is not American.

Such rumors take on an even more sinister hue when birthers rant that Obama is trying to cheat "us" -- that he really was born in Kenya, and that his mother doctored the birth certificate or, more egregiously, secreted Obama to Hawaii from Kenya only days after his birth, then secured a U.S. birth certificate for her foreign-born son.

Although these claims are, at best, ludicrous, they should also compel us to consider why the Constitution bans foreign-born U.S. citizens from presidential office -- and to amend the Constitution so that questions about birth certificates and origins of birth no longer matter. In doing so, U.S. citizens, like my two sons, might be eligible for the country's highest office.

My sons seem fit for a political life. Both are gregarious and charismatic, diplomatic, eager to shake hands with strangers and to kiss babies. OK, so they are only 7, but they have the temperaments of budding politicians. But they cannot become president without a constitutional amendment opening the office to foreign-born U.S. citizens.

Benjamin, my oldest son, was born in Vietnam, and became a U.S. citizen at 7 months old. My Indian-born son, Samuel, became a U.S. citizen at age 3. Both my sons are being educated here and are culturally American, right down to their love for greasy food and baseball. Still, the infamous Joe the Plumber has an easier chance of ascending to the country's highest office than they do.

Once in a while, processes begin to amend the Constitution. In the past five years, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah introduced an amendment to the Constitution to allow foreign-born U.S. citizens the opportunity to run for president if they have lived as citizens for 20 years. But the amendment lost traction and seemingly disappeared, replaced this past election year with shrill arguments about the significance of a president-elect's U.S. birthplace.

Those obsessing about Obama's birth certificate now are stuck in a kind of nativism and xenophobia that fails to see how shifts in our country's demographics might demand a changed Constitution. Instead, the birthers generally believe that people born overseas do not fully understand the United States. Some suggest that only those born here should lead here because all others are susceptible to having foreign loyalties.



read it all if you wish...
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/time_for_a_change_to_the_const.html

[Little-Acorn]

reading this hurt my brain...:laugh2:


Well, there's where you made your mistake.

You tried to use your brain while reading a liberal screed!

No wonder it hurt. Sort of link using your nose while carrying out the garbage.

You haven't noticed any pain-stricken liberals around, have you?

[Silver]

reading this hurt my brain...:laugh2:

by Melanie Springer Mock, guest opinion Monday July 27, 2009, 8:30 AM

The drumbeat of discontent from the so-called "birthers" has started again. Nearly six months after President Barack Obama was inaugurated, fringe members of the conservative party are finding public platforms to argue that Obama has no right to the presidency because he does not have a valid U.S. birth certificate.

Never mind the bigoted undertones of these claims, the unspoken assertion that because Obama does not look like "us," he is not American.


Thats actually pretty funny....Obama doesn't look like us ?
Who is us ?
Does an American have a particular "look"?
What is "the American 'look' ?
Do his little girls look like Americans?
How about his wife?
How about Sotomayer? Does she look like an American?

Such rumors take on an even more sinister hue when birthers rant that Obama is trying to cheat "us" -- that he really was born in Kenya, and that his mother doctored the birth certificate or, more egregiously, secreted Obama to Hawaii from Kenya only days after his birth, then secured a U.S. birth certificate for her foreign-born son.

Although these claims are, at best, ludicrous, they should also compel us to consider why the Constitution bans foreign-born U.S. citizens from presidential office -- and to amend the Constitution so that questions about birth certificates and origins of birth no longer matter. In doing so, U.S. citizens, like my two sons, might be eligible for the country's highest office.

My sons seem fit for a political life. Both are gregarious and charismatic, diplomatic, eager to shake hands with strangers and to kiss babies. OK, so they are only 7, but they have the temperaments of budding politicians. But they cannot become president without a constitutional amendment opening the office to foreign-born U.S. citizens.

Benjamin, my oldest son, was born in Vietnam, and became a U.S. citizen at 7 months old. My Indian-born son, Samuel, became a U.S. citizen at age 3. Both my sons are being educated here and are culturally American, right down to their love for greasy food and baseball. Still, the infamous Joe the Plumber has an easier chance of ascending to the country's highest office than they do.

Once in a while, processes begin to amend the Constitution. In the past five years, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah introduced an amendment to the Constitution to allow foreign-born U.S. citizens the opportunity to run for president if they have lived as citizens for 20 years. But the amendment lost traction and seemingly disappeared, replaced this past election year with shrill arguments about the significance of a president-elect's U.S. birthplace.

Those obsessing about Obama's birth certificate now are stuck in a kind of nativism and xenophobia that fails to see how shifts in our country's demographics might demand a changed Constitution. Instead, the birthers generally believe that people born overseas do not fully understand the United States. Some suggest that only those born here should lead here because all others are susceptible to having foreign loyalties.



read it all if you wish...
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/time_for_a_change_to_the_const.html

Of course the messiah is a US citizen....but I wonder why the big secret about his birth certificate? and his college records, etc....do they contain the plans for building a nuclear bomb? or a super secret spy satellite..? Whats the big deal for all the secrecy...?

[glockmail]

She should be bitch-slapped for playing the race card.

[HogTrash]

Of course the messiah is a US citizen....but I wonder why the big secret about his birth certificate? and his college records, etc....do they contain the plans for building a nuclear bomb? or a super secret spy satellite..? Whats the big deal for all the secrecy...?Obama's IQ is also a closely guarded secret.

Hmmm?....I wonder if he's just being modest?

[Binky]

I don't understand all the secrecy myself...what's up with that? If one has nothing to hide, then why not be an open book and dispell with all the inuendos, suspicisions and bullpucky that's being tossed about? I don't get it! Sure would be nice to close this chapter and move on to the next. We all know he made friends with some not so nice people....it seems he enjoyed the company of snakes. However, this is not news. So what's going on?

My mother used to say, "if you wallow in a ditch with snakes, people will perceive you as one of them." There's some stinky poo coming out of that ditch.

[xav8terx]

LOL it's to fuck with simple minded fools...like you conservatives for instance. :lol:

[stephanie]

I'm pretty sure the X is our old Oca...anyone else?

[Nukeman]

LOL it's to fuck with simple minded fools...like you conservatives for instance. :lol:Let me get this straight, If one questions something that is HIDDEN they are simple minded. Yet one who blindly follows is enlightened. HMMMMM whos the "fucking moron" here!!!!??!?!?!

[gabosaurus]

Let's change the second amendment while we are at it. It is very outdated.

[stephanie]

Let's change the second amendment while we are at it. It is very outdated.

yeah, then your hubby can protect you with a pointy stick or of course you could wait those precious minuets for the police to get there and confront that armed robber in your house....:laugh2::slap:

[emmett]

I don;t think it imprudent to want to know my president has qualified under the rules that were governing at the time of his qualifications. Want to change it fine! HE however would still be required to qualify under the regulations set forth at the time of his candiacy.

Changing the rules mid term only allows other unconstitutional changes. This seems right in tune with what Socialists seem likely to prefer. W already know we don;t like to enforce rules here. Imigration proves that. Enforce the damn law!

Barack Obama stands for everything America does not. Most of the people who support him are pawns who have nothing and vote for the anticipated freebies they will recieve as a result. What are those folks going to do when the economics of this country are destoryed and there are no "entitlements". Wake up Liberals, how dumb can you be?

[gabosaurus]

yeah, then your hubby can protect you with a pointy stick or of course you could wait those precious minuets for the police to get there and confront that armed robber in your house....:laugh2::slap:

My point is, no one is under threat of Indian attacks anymore.
You can still own guns. Legally obtained and registered guns. I doubt our forefathers thought we needed the right to own assault rifles.

[emmett]

Let's change the second amendment while we are at it. It is very outdated.


Change it how? Should we take all guns from law abiding citizens so only criminal elements will have them?

You don;t actually think the drug dealing thugs and burglers are going to hand in their guns do you?

Do you suggest a house to house search for these guns in an affort to collect them like a damn gustapo? Ooooh. That's it! What will be the rule for how long someone has to open the door before it is kicked in? We need to address that you know. That way, handicapped people could pplace an insignia on their door to show it may take them a little more time before they could answer. Oh...never mind, just make it the law that they are required to leave the door unlocked so as to allow easy entry for government officials.


Gabby, I would think you far more intelligent than to think criminals are not going to go a muck in a country where the citizenry has no self defense capability. I'm surprised at how you seem to have these bad moments. Maybe it is something you are placing in your morning coffee. Are you using Nutra-Sweet?


TRIVIA QUESTION OF THE DAY: (Listen Class)

You are hiding in your closet. Footsteps of a burgler are coming closer. No...wait....they are headed for your child's room. Your child screams. Screams again. Oh my God......your worst nightmare is coming true. Your 14 year old is about to be raped. Possibly killed. Your thoughts run wild thinking about the horror she is about to endure. You could run into ther room with a knife from out of the kitchen, but it isn;t prudent to take a knife to a gunbattle, we all know that. You shake and sweat as you try to decide what to do. The shrill sound of your burgler alarm vibrates your senses as you try to decide what to do. What kind of monster would pay no attention to the sound of that thing and run? (A drug crazed lunatic......that's who) Oh God help me...you think.

QUESTION: Would you like to have a gun? I think so.

[stephanie]

My point is, no one is under threat of Indian attacks anymore.
You can still own guns. Legally obtained and registered guns. I doubt our forefathers thought we needed the right to own assault rifles.

Gabs dear...you don't have the right to tell others what all they need...even though it is something you lefties think you do...

I don't think you need all that money you have and need to live in some big ole house, but I don't intend to try and force you into poverty and living in some shack..

you really need to grow up and start thinking for yourself, instead of just listening to and agreeing with all the lefty ideology you hear from your friends...:cheers2:

[gabosaurus]

you really need to grow up and start thinking for yourself, instead of just listening to and agreeing with all the lefty ideology you hear from your friends.

You are conveniently forgetting that I am not the political person here. I don't discuss politics with people, nor do I listen to political programs on TV or radio.
If the rest of you wish to immerse yourselves in politics on a constant basis, go right ahead. I can read your arguments in this forum.
I don't see or hear much about Obama or his political adversaries on Animal Planet, Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel. I can tell you who Demi Lovato and the Jonas Brothers are, and why they rule. :D

[stephanie]

You are conveniently forgetting that I am not the political person here. I don't discuss politics with people, nor do I listen to political programs on TV or radio.
If the rest of you wish to immerse yourselves in politics on a constant basis, go right ahead. I can read your arguments in this forum.
I don't see or hear much about Obama or his political adversaries on Animal Planet, Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel. I can tell you who Demi Lovato and the Jonas Brothers are, and why they rule. :D

well dear, you are the one who said this...

You can still own guns. Legally obtained and registered guns. I doubt our forefathers thought we needed the right to own assault rifles.
of course I was responding to that statement and why you would say something like that and even believe we really don't need those type of weapons...maybe that is just how your really feel..but it really is good to see how others feel about our 2nd amenment rights and go from there, that's what I was talking about learning from others..maybe I could of worded it gentler, I'm not in the best of moods today..:cheers2:

[gabosaurus]

Everything I post here is my own opinion. I don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh or read right-wing blogs in order to formulate opinion.
My parents always encouraged me to think for myself and formulate my own opinions. My dad has always had very strong political opinions, but he never pushed any of them off on me. My husband is the same way. We don't argue about politics.

If I didn't want to know what other think, and learn from their opinions and experiences, I wouldn't read this forum pretty much every day. Since the vast majority of DP members have different viewpoints than mine (to put in mildly).

The difference is that I am willing to change my views and opinions if I feel the need to. I doubt many DP members would do the same.

[stephanie]

Everything I post here is my own opinion. I don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh or read right-wing blogs in order to formulate opinion.
My parents always encouraged me to think for myself and formulate my own opinions. My dad has always had very strong political opinions, but he never pushed any of them off on me. My husband is the same way. We don't argue about politics.

If I didn't want to know what other think, and learn from their opinions and experiences, I wouldn't read this forum pretty much every day. Since the vast majority of DP members have different viewpoints than mine (to put in mildly).

The difference is that I am willing to change my views and opinions if I feel the need to. I doubt many DP members would do the same.


so all of us here are only robot follower's of the Great Rush Limbaugh and can't think for ourselves or won't.....got it..
and I have yet over all these years you've been here see you change your mind on anything, either...but that's all neither here nor there...we are all one big happy family, as Barney would say....:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Everything I post here is my own opinion. I don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh or read right-wing blogs in order to formulate opinion.
My parents always encouraged me to think for myself and formulate my own opinions. My dad has always had very strong political opinions, but he never pushed any of them off on me. My husband is the same way. We don't argue about politics.

If I didn't want to know what other think, and learn from their opinions and experiences, I wouldn't read this forum pretty much every day. Since the vast majority of DP members have different viewpoints than mine (to put in mildly).

The difference is that I am willing to change my views and opinions if I feel the need to. I doubt many DP members would do the same.

I changed my opinion of how the war in Iraq was being executed, before the NYT did. Why? I read military blogs, I listened to the criticism being leveled by some liberals on USMB, where most of us were then, I can think.

I went from a paid worker for GWB in 2000, to a supporter in 2004, to being glad to see him go after TARP.

Gabby, when did you change your mind on any political issue or candidate?

[5stringJeff]

My point is, no one is under threat of Indian attacks anymore.
You can still own guns. Legally obtained and registered guns. I doubt our forefathers thought we needed the right to own assault rifles.

Our forefathers thought we needed military-grade individual weapons, to protect ourselves from threats both within and without. In my mind, we should be free to own fully automatic M-60 machine guns.

[HogTrash]

Let's change the second amendment while we are at it. It is very outdated.

My point is, no one is under threat of Indian attacks anymore.
You can still own guns. Legally obtained and registered guns. I doubt our forefathers thought we needed the right to own assault rifles.My goodness Gabby, you are a full blown liberal!

Do you really trust the government that much?

[cat slave]

You are conveniently forgetting that I am not the political person here. I don't discuss politics with people, nor do I listen to political programs on TV or radio.
If the rest of you wish to immerse yourselves in politics on a constant basis, go right ahead. I can read your arguments in this forum.
I don't see or hear much about Obama or his political adversaries on Animal Planet, Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel. I can tell you who Demi Lovato and the Jonas Brothers are, and why they rule. :D

Uh, I thought everyone on this board was interested in debating political
issues. Im a newbie so maybe Im wrong.

[cat slave]

My goodness Gabby, you are a full blown liberal!

Do you really trust the government that much?


Oh, well that explains it.
Nuff said.

Weve had librul ideology forced upon us via tv, newspapers etc. for decades.
Rush, Hannity etc. simply saw a void and filled it. Thank God. Im happy that
someone is able to find the truth and blow the whistle on the white collar
criminals.:beer:

[gabosaurus]

Uh, I thought everyone on this board was interested in debating political issues. Im a newbie so maybe Im wrong.

I debate issues of the day here every day. I just don't allow them to consume my life. I have better things to worry about.

[GetAClue]

Of course the messiah is a US citizen....but I wonder why the big secret about his birth certificate? and his college records, etc....do they contain the plans for building a nuclear bomb? or a super secret spy satellite..? Whats the big deal for all the secrecy...?
IMO, Obama was probably born in Hawaii as he claims. I think the whole idea of him not being born here was planted by someone close to him in an attempt to get the public focused on something they could not prove while providing cover for him to get his socialist agenda passed. It's the old bait and switch routine.

Did you ever notice any time his policies begin to get questioned, this whole thing flares up about his birth certificate. It is actually pretty clever. He can blame it on Conservatives or Republicans and use it to show how partisan they are. And if it ever REALLY got bad, he could always still produce it. But by not producing it for everyone to see, he still has that in is back pocket to deflect from his agenda.

Besides, even IF he were not born in this country, does anyone really believe that anything would be done about it?

[GetAClue]

Let's change the second amendment while we are at it. It is very outdated.
I wish liberals would be up front about their intentions on this subject. Then they would almost ALL be thrown out of office.

I'll bet you don't even really understand why that amendment was even added to the Constitution! Why don't you articulate that to the group and then see if your REALLY want to change it.

[stephanie]

I debate issues of the day here every day. I just don't allow them to consume my life. I have better things to worry about.


you are still young Gabs..I was like you at your age...but hopefully as you get older you understand more of what our government was originally meant for and see why us oldies are now fighting against what we see as a Government that is out of control....
we'll take care of the hard work for you, for now..

but here's a hint: you might want to wake up soon, before it is too late

[gabosaurus]

you are still young Gabs..I was like you at your age...but hopefully as you get older you understand more of what our government was originally meant for and see why us oldies are now fighting against what we see as a Government that is out of control....
we'll take care of the hard work for you, for now..

but here's a hint: you might want to wake up soon, before it is too late

I get it. Unless I wise up and become an extreme right-wing conservative, my life is doomed to failure. Because there is only one way of thinking -- your way.
When many of us saw through Dubya's pseudo-patriotic "kill thy neighbor" bullshit and protested his phony war (and the wasted billions of dollars that funded it), the ConReps were all over us. How dare we oppose the President of the United States! Our nation is "at war"!!
Yet now, when the current President want to spend money on OUR country for a change, the ConReps are outraged! It's our money! Stop spending our money on things that might help us!

Sorry Stephanie, but YOU are the one that is in the dark this time. You are marching blindly behind your leaders in the extreme right-wing media.
Bush fucked up the country with his war of revenge, his repeated blow jobs to the Arab world and his lack of control over Corporate America.
Someone has to clean up the resulting shit pile. And it is going to take money. Lots of your tax money. Get ready to fork it over.
Along with all of your guns. :D

[stephanie]

I get it. Unless I wise up and become an extreme right-wing conservative, my life is doomed to failure. Because there is only one way of thinking -- your way.
When many of us saw through Dubya's pseudo-patriotic "kill thy neighbor" bullshit and protested his phony war (and the wasted billions of dollars that funded it), the ConReps were all over us. How dare we oppose the President of the United States! Our nation is "at war"!!
Yet now, when the current President want to spend money on OUR country for a change, the ConReps are outraged! It's our money! Stop spending our money on things that might help us!

Sorry Stephanie, but YOU are the one that is in the dark this time. You are marching blindly behind your leaders in the extreme right-wing media.
Bush fucked up the country with his war of revenge, his repeated blow jobs to the Arab world and his lack of control over Corporate America.
Someone has to clean up the resulting shit pile. And it is going to take money. Lots of your tax money. Get ready to fork it over.
Along with all of your guns. :D


you sound just like a DNC walking talking Parrot..Gabs...it shows your lack of understanding the role of government or that you really don't care because you think it makes you look right..tsk tsk

[gabosaurus]

Stephanie, you have been around this forum (and the preceding one) long enough to know that my views have changed significantly from what they once were. I am a lot less radical.
But my brain has not dulled enough to be a Republican yet. Perhaps in a few years.

[stephanie]

Stephanie, you have been around this forum (and the preceding one) long enough to know that my views have changed significantly from what they once were. I am a lot less radical.
But my brain has not dulled enough to be a Republican yet. Perhaps in a few years.

well then, with that I will hold out some hope..:thumb:

[emmett]

Stephanie, you have been around this forum (and the preceding one) long enough to know that my views have changed significantly from what they once were. I am a lot less radical.
But my brain has not dulled enough to be a Republican yet. Perhaps in a few years.


A couple of us were just talking about that the other night. Except for the breif moments of temptation to whining liberal sarcasm based in terribly inaccurate innuendo you do seem to be evolving somewhat. i think there may be hope for you yet kid.:laugh2:

[stephanie]

Ok here goes...now delete this as soon as everyone has read it..just kidding:laugh2:

Gabs is really a great gal..she is young (26? I think by now) and she has the liberal views that I must admit, I probably had some of the same when I was her age..
She has stuck around for a lot of grief, especially from little ole me...but I must admit, she has a mighty strong chin...

Gabs. I just want to say this for all to see..I do think you are a wonderful person but...with a lot of the star in the eyes world view that just might never be able to be achieved...(we all wish they could though)..

I take my hat off to you Miss Gabby...you are one tough chick..and most times lovable (I know you've grown on me)...until you post from that dang rudepundit..

Here's to you little one...:clap:

[GetAClue]

I would still like to see her take on the 2nd amendment. Why did the founders add that to the Constitution? What was their reasoning? She sounds like someone that is strongly opposed to that amendment so I would like to hear her take on it.

I did not realize how young she was, so I can understand some of her views from an age and wisdom standpoint. As Winston Churchill once said, "If at 20 you are not a liberal, you have no heart. If by 30 you are not a Conservative, you have no brain."

There is still hope for her, but I would like to here her stance on the 2nd Amendment.

[gabosaurus]

Well heck. I is flabbergasted.
There are stubborn people on both sides. That is why politics are so divisive. The most extreme cases will never believe that they are wrong.
Trouble is, many of the extremists have no middle point. I seek a middle point. I have been banned from conservative boards for bashing the Bushies. I was banned from DU for bashing Clinton.
Always try to remember that there are two sides to every argument. I know you don't want to. You want to think that there is only one side -- yours. That is why you consider every information source that is not right-wing to be "liberal media." Even though the alleged "liberal media" is usually owned by some of the most conservative companies in the country.

[emmett]

The problem with everything in this political climate is that people refuse to understand that there are more than "two" sides to the argument. Having only sides is what got us to where we are. Narrow minded thinking comprised of believing we only have two choices when indeed we have more. I would think it obvious that since we all pretty much agree that these times are at some level...screwed up maybe we should start thinking about some of those other choices.


VOTE LIBERTARIAN....for real change (maybe even back to where we started)

[gabosaurus]

I believe the Second Amendment is widely misinterpreted and more than a bit out of date.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but from what I have read, the second amendment was primarily a response to British Royalists wanting to disarm the Colonials in the buildup to the War for Independence.

Primary reasons for the adaption of the second amendment were as follows:
** deterring undemocratic government
** repelling invasion
** suppressing insurrection
** facilitating a natural right of self-defense
** participating in law enforcement
** slave control

Which led to the following amendment being placed into the Constitution:

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.

I see nothing in there that would prevent registration of guns. You still get to own guns.
Also, which part of the amendment gives you the right to own an assault rifle?

Instead, the yahoos of the National Gun Nut Association have preserved the right for anyone to buy any kind of weapon. Including, but not restricted to: convicted violent criminals, illegal aliens, members of drug cartels, the mentally ill and anyone harboring suicidal or homicidal thoughts or ambitions.
It has become such a political force that politicians have placed retaining their jobs over protecting their constituents.

I would like to see the amendment be more strictly enforced: those seeking to buy weapons would have to prove that they are members of a regulated militia.
Otherwise, I want registration and national background checks. And I want guns to be sold only by licensed dealers, not at unregulated gun shows.

[Kathianne]

I believe the Second Amendment is widely misinterpreted and more than a bit out of date.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but from what I have read, the second amendment was primarily a response to British Royalists wanting to disarm the Colonials in the buildup to the War for Independence.

Primary reasons for the adaption of the second amendment were as follows:
** deterring undemocratic government
** repelling invasion
** suppressing insurrection
** facilitating a natural right of self-defense
** participating in law enforcement
** slave control

Which led to the following amendment being placed into the Constitution:


I see nothing in there that would prevent registration of guns. You still get to own guns.
Also, which part of the amendment gives you the right to own an assault rifle?

Instead, the yahoos of the National Gun Nut Association have preserved the right for anyone to buy any kind of weapon. Including, but not restricted to: convicted violent criminals, illegal aliens, members of drug cartels, the mentally ill and anyone harboring suicidal or homicidal thoughts or ambitions.
It has become such a political force that politicians have placed retaining their jobs over protecting their constituents.

I would like to see the amendment be more strictly enforced: those seeking to buy weapons would have to prove that they are members of a regulated militia.
Otherwise, I want registration and national background checks. And I want guns to be sold only by licensed dealers, not at unregulated gun shows.

Gabby, got some good links to the NRA claim? I googled and cannot find anything to support your point, other than anti-2nd amendment sites.

[emmett]

I believe the Second Amendment is widely misinterpreted and more than a bit out of date.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but from what I have read, the second amendment was primarily a response to British Royalists wanting to disarm the Colonials in the buildup to the War for Independence.

Primary reasons for the adaption of the second amendment were as follows:
** deterring undemocratic government
** repelling invasion
** suppressing insurrection
** facilitating a natural right of self-defense
** participating in law enforcement
** slave control

Which led to the following amendment being placed into the Constitution:


I see nothing in there that would prevent registration of guns. You still get to own guns.
Also, which part of the amendment gives you the right to own an assault rifle?

Instead, the yahoos of the National Gun Nut Association have preserved the right for anyone to buy any kind of weapon. Including, but not restricted to: convicted violent criminals, illegal aliens, members of drug cartels, the mentally ill and anyone harboring suicidal or homicidal thoughts or ambitions.
It has become such a political force that politicians have placed retaining their jobs over protecting their constituents.

I would like to see the amendment be more strictly enforced: those seeking to buy weapons would have to prove that they are members of a regulated militia.
Otherwise, I want registration and national background checks. And I want guns to be sold only by licensed dealers, not at unregulated gun shows.

Assault rifles are guns.

To "keep" means to have

The NRA most certainly does not advocate convicted felons having guns. Especially those who used guns to commit a crime.

I con't remember reading where any member of the NRA advocating drug cartels having guns. Maybe a "Link" to where an afficer of the NRA has said that?

Harboring suicidal tendencies????? Come on Gabby! You know that isn't true. More sarcasm dear? Have I ever told you the story of the little girl who used Sarcasm too much? She had a hard time getting anyone to take her serious when she chose to be so.

OR.....have I ever told you the story of the Liberal who begged for their life while about to be murdered by a gun wielding criminal whose gun was NOT registered? Yeah.....they wished they had a gun and were sorry they didn't.

A question for you. Would you use a gun to protect your child?


I'm done.

[Silver]

Stephanie, you have been around this forum (and the preceding one) long enough to know that my views have changed significantly from what they once were. I am a lot less radical.
But my brain has not dulled enough to be a Republican yet. Perhaps in a few years.

But my brain has not dulled enough to be a Republican yet ????

Thus our term for you and those that think like you....pinhead:lol:

[GetAClue]

I believe the Second Amendment is widely misinterpreted and more than a bit out of date.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but from what I have read, the second amendment was primarily a response to British Royalists wanting to disarm the Colonials in the buildup to the War for Independence.

Primary reasons for the adaption of the second amendment were as follows:
** deterring undemocratic government
** repelling invasion
** suppressing insurrection
** facilitating a natural right of self-defense
** participating in law enforcement
** slave control

Which led to the following amendment being placed into the Constitution:

Well, I am impressed. You must have done some research. One of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment by our founders was to prevent the government from creating and enforcing laws that would restrict or remove freedoms from citizens outlined in the Constitution. The founders understood that if the government did not fear its citizens, it would become corrupt and tyrannical. The founders feared their own government far more than they did foreign invaders.



I see nothing in there that would prevent registration of guns. You still get to own guns.

To answer your question about registration, what would be the point of registration? The ultimate goal of gun registration is to later confiscate those weapons. I believe that violates the spirit of the amendment.

Don’t believe me, ask Germans in the late 1930’s under Nazi rule. The Nazi’s passed a law requiring its citizens to register their guns. A couple of years later, they demanded that citizens turn in their weapons under penalty of death.



Also, which part of the amendment gives you the right to own an assault rifle?

The question is which part prohibits the ownership of said weapons?

But what is so devious about Assault rifles? I take it you saw video of the Democrats shooting up watermelons with assault rifles and were horrified. I have news for you; there are a lot of guns will blow up a watermelon that are not classified as assault rifles. I own a few myself.



Instead, the yahoos of the National Gun Nut Association have preserved the right for anyone to buy any kind of weapon. Including, but not restricted to: convicted violent criminals, illegal aliens, members of drug cartels, the mentally ill and anyone harboring suicidal or homicidal thoughts or ambitions.
It has become such a political force that politicians have placed retaining their jobs over protecting their constituents.
Please show me evidence where the NRA supports ANY of the groups you mentioned owning firearms. That is an outright lie.



I would like to see the amendment be more strictly enforced: those seeking to buy weapons would have to prove that they are members of a regulated militia.
Please show me where owning a gun is contingent upon being a part of a militia. You need to re-read the amendment. The stated purpose of the amendment was to guarantee that a well regulated militia could be maintained. However, it says “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not say the militia, it says the PEOPLE! The first part of the amendment is the why, the second part is the what.



Otherwise, I want registration and national background checks. And I want guns to be sold only by licensed dealers, not at unregulated gun shows.
Then I suggest you move to England, Australia or some other socialist nation where they do this. But make sure you pay up on your life insurance. I hear that gun homicide rates in those countries have risen sharply since they outlawed private gun ownership.

[stephanie]

I'd like to state for the record and I woke up this morning and read my salute to Gabby..



I had been drinking......................heavily...

:alcoholic::alcoholic::alcoholic:












just kidding...:laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

Current law allows private gun dealers to sell weapons without background checks. If you are a private citizen, you can go to a gun show and sell to anyone. No background check, no ID, nothing. The NRA is opposed to changing this.
Which means the NRA favors the right to sell guns to anyone who wants one. Whether they be criminals, mentally ill people or drug cartels. You want a gun? Come buy one.
The NRA might not support the right of these groups to buy guns, but they don't oppose it.


To answer your question about registration, what would be the point of registration? The ultimate goal of gun registration is to later confiscate those weapons. I believe that violates the spirit of the amendment.

You can't be serious! The ultimate goal of gun registration is to make sure that only those with a legal right can own guns.
There is no "spirit" to this law. It is black and white. To compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany is ludicrous. You sound like a living "scare commercial" for the NRA.

Gun nuts justify themselves by saying they own guns for self protection. Or for hunting.
So why do you need an assault rifle? Or a grenade launcher? Or a machine gun?
Once again, this puts these weapons in the hands of those who do not need them, such as criminals and drug cartels.
Give me a good reason why you need an assault rifle. As opposed to, say, a handgun or a rifle.

My husband and I own a gun. So does my sister and her husband. We have a license to own a gun. We have taken firearms safety courses.
I do not feel my rights have been infringed upon.

[GetAClue]

Current law allows private gun dealers to sell weapons without background checks. If you are a private citizen, you can go to a gun show and sell to anyone. No background check, no ID, nothing. The NRA is opposed to changing this.
Which means the NRA favors the right to sell guns to anyone who wants one. Whether they be criminals, mentally ill people or drug cartels. You want a gun? Come buy one.
The NRA might not support the right of these groups to buy guns, but they don't oppose it.



You can't be serious! The ultimate goal of gun registration is to make sure that only those with a legal right can own guns.
There is no "spirit" to this law. It is black and white. To compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany is ludicrous. You sound like a living "scare commercial" for the NRA.

Gun nuts justify themselves by saying they own guns for self protection. Or for hunting.
So why do you need an assault rifle? Or a grenade launcher? Or a machine gun?
Once again, this puts these weapons in the hands of those who do not need them, such as criminals and drug cartels.
Give me a good reason why you need an assault rifle. As opposed to, say, a handgun or a rifle.

My husband and I own a gun. So does my sister and her husband. We have a license to own a gun. We have taken firearms safety courses.
I do not feel my rights have been infringed upon.
I disagree. The way to keep guns out of the hands of those that should not have them is background checks. After I have passed a background check, why does the government need to know were I live, what kind of gun I own, how many guns I own or anything else about me? They already said I was worthy of owning a gun, why do they need to maintain a record of my guns? Think about that for a second. Does that really make sense?

The only reason to register your weapon is so they can come and take it away from you. I am not comparing the United States to Nazi Germany. I simply stated that the same argument was used there and showed the ultimate result of that action. By the way, that is not the only country to have done that.

I will say that I have no problem with background checks and would not really be opposed to enforcing those at gun shows. However, I understand the NRA’s stance on it. They see it as one more example of an erosion of gun ownership rights. Also, have you ever been to a gun show? There is a lot of bartering and trading of guns. The current background check would essentially end these events. If they could come up with a way to allow your background check to be easily verified as to not hinder the gun show process, I would be all for it.

[emmett]

Talk about fear! Fear is when you fail to realize that it is the same responsible people you threaten to take guns from will be the folks securing your neighborhood in case of foriegn invasion.

Also...just for the record. The 2nd Amendment does not address convicted criminals. Technically they have the same "right" as others. Food for thought. I don;t agree with this but itis the law. So I accept it. Maybe some of you Liberals ought to learn to do the same.

I still want to see a link that shows any member of the NRA condoning gun cartels having these weapons or their rights to have them in our country. This is a spin and not a very good one.

Gabby, when the government says you are to surrender your gun, will you comply? I don;t expect an answer as I have noticed over the years that you refuse to answer my questions because they clearly trump your opinions. All you can do is attempt to spin in some other innuendo to attempt to make a point of rhetorically influenced inaccuracy.

When you suurender that gun as all good citizens will in your opinion, are you shallow enough to think that criminals will do the same?

[gabosaurus]

Please show me any evidence (or hint of evidence) that says the government will ever take away guns. THAT is fear-mongering.

I don't need any links or statements from the NRA. The fact that they oppose any kind of limits to who can own a gun means that they condone criminals, drug runners and street gangs buying weapons. They can talk all the want. But it is hollow talk.
If there is a huge gun show in Houston, and a drug cartel mule comes in and buy 100 assault rifles, no one is going to stop him from doing so. If a high ranking member of the Latin Kings comes in and buys body armor and grenade launchers, no one is going to say no.

Not being against it means you are in favor of it.

[HogTrash]

I believe the Second Amendment is widely misinterpreted and more than a bit out of date.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but from what I have read, the second amendment was primarily a response to British Royalists wanting to disarm the Colonials in the buildup to the War for Independence.

Primary reasons for the adaption of the second amendment were as follows:
** deterring undemocratic government
** repelling invasion
** suppressing insurrection
** facilitating a natural right of self-defense
** participating in law enforcement
** slave control

Which led to the following amendment being placed into the Constitution:


I see nothing in there that would prevent registration of guns. You still get to own guns.
Also, which part of the amendment gives you the right to own an assault rifle?

Instead, the yahoos of the National Gun Nut Association have preserved the right for anyone to buy any kind of weapon. Including, but not restricted to: convicted violent criminals, illegal aliens, members of drug cartels, the mentally ill and anyone harboring suicidal or homicidal thoughts or ambitions.
It has become such a political force that politicians have placed retaining their jobs over protecting their constituents.

I would like to see the amendment be more strictly enforced: those seeking to buy weapons would have to prove that they are members of a regulated militia.
Otherwise, I want registration and national background checks. And I want guns to be sold only by licensed dealers, not at unregulated gun shows.Your government wants your guns....You ever wonder why?

The reason is, the worst fear people in power have is loosing that power.

The first act of every oppressive government is to disarm the civilian population.

Through media and propaganda they will convince many to trust them and join them in their quest to create a safer nation for you.

The gullible will believe them, especially the young and inexperianced...The US is now divided on this issue and the goverment is pushing ever harder.

Vladimer Lenin disarmed the Russians when communism came into power in Russia by a trusting population.

Hitler disarmed the German people when the nazis came into power in Germany by a trusting population.

Mao Tse Tung disarmed the Chinese when communism came into power in China by a trusting population.

At Tiananmen Square Bejieng China in 1989 thousands of unarmed Chinese college students protested the government oppression, demanding democracy.

The Chinese government called in the military and massacerd 7000 innocent unarmed people who wanted to regain the freedom their grandparents trustingly gave up to Chairman Mao.

Watch this short video showing how happy the people were welcoming the new government they were promised would make their lives better and as it progressed to modern day and the massacre.

The most revealing moment of the students struggle is the famous scene of the brave young man standing unarmed in front of a large Chinese military tank...They want what we are throwing away!

This tells how precious the freedom is that we Americans take for granted everyday and these young Chinese people are willing to die for...This is less than 5 minutes long and ends with the tank scene.

The most important thing to remember...Never trust your government enough to give up your guns.

GhZCux2oxko&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhZCux2oxko&NR=1
O4xtkpO7ZqU&eurl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4xtkpO7ZqU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edebatepolicy%2Ecom%2Fnewre ply%2Ephp%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D23707&feature=player_embedded

[HogTrash]

Please show me any evidence (or hint of evidence) that says the government will ever take away guns. THAT is fear-mongering.

I don't need any links or statements from the NRA. The fact that they oppose any kind of limits to who can own a gun means that they condone criminals, drug runners and street gangs buying weapons. They can talk all the want. But it is hollow talk.
If there is a huge gun show in Houston, and a drug cartel mule comes in and buy 100 assault rifles, no one is going to stop him from doing so. If a high ranking member of the Latin Kings comes in and buys body armor and grenade launchers, no one is going to say no.

Not being against it means you are in favor of it.Gun laws and restrictions will never prevent criminals from getting guns.

Gun laws will only prevent honest law abiding citizens from owning guns.

[glockmail]

I believe the Second Amendment is widely misinterpreted and more than a bit out of date. .... Freedom never goes out of style babe, sorry.

[red states rule]

Freedom never goes out of style babe, sorry.

Gabby only wants to grant you the freedoms she deems appropriate. Dissent was cool during the Bush years - now dissent while Dems are in charge must be silenced - and those responsible must be savaged

[emmett]

(Emmett places his freshly cleaned P95 on the coffee table next to his freshly cleaned Colt Anaconda and writes....)

Gee Gabby, I've never seen anyone at a gun show have 100 assault rifles for sale. Are you sure about that?