Guns Used More For Suicide Than Murder

#26
#26
KB5252 said:
No they did read it but they got hung up on the reference to militias. They don't seem to see the militia's as I do, a group of citizens who band together in arms to defend their city, town, state etc. Kind of like the minute men were. It all depends on what you interpret from the document which is why picking justices is such a hot topic.
Click to expand...

I think that they, the 4, are looking for any way that they can, to re-write the Constitution, through their rulings, to fit a Liberal agenda. Just my opinion.
 
#27
#27
T-TownVol said:
I think that they, the 4, are looking for any way that they can, to re-write the Constitution, through their rulings, to fit a Liberal agenda. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think their decisions are influenced by their political beliefs just like any other person. I do believe however that conservative justices are less likely to "bend" the Constitution than their liberal counterparts.
 
#28
#28
KB5252 said:
I think their decisions are influenced by their political beliefs just like any other person. I do believe however that conservative justices are less likely to "bend" the Constitution than their liberal counterparts.
Click to expand...

You are being very polite...I agree with you.
 
#29
#29
T-TownVol said:
I think that they, the 4, are looking for any way that they can, to re-write the Constitution, through their rulings, to fit a Liberal agenda. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Brother, that's not even close to "just" your opinion. It gets really frustrating to think that an amendment included in the Bill of Rights and quite specifically states "the RIGHT (keep saying that word 'til it sinks in) of THE PEOPLE (seriously, how is that interpreted any other way than what it says?) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As to the militia issue a "militia" is a government sanctioned and controlled entity, a little bit like the mondern National Guard. Why would the Constitution go to the trouble of specifically enumerating the government's right to have it's militia's armed?
 
#30
#30
hndog609 said:
Brother, that's not even close to "just" your opinion. It gets really frustrating to think that an amendment included in the Bill of Rights and quite specifically states "the RIGHT (keep saying that word 'til it sinks in) of THE PEOPLE (seriously, how is that interpreted any other way than what it says?) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As to the militia issue a "militia" is a government sanctioned and controlled entity, a little bit like the mondern National Guard. Why would the Constitution go to the trouble of specifically enumerating the government's right to have it's militia's armed?
Click to expand...

I just did not want to paint with a broad brush as to how many on here believe the same as I do. I knew that the ones that do would join in, Thanks
 
#31
#31
KB5252 said:
I think their decisions are influenced by their political beliefs just like any other person. I do believe however that conservative justices are less likely to "bend" the Constitution than their liberal counterparts.
Click to expand...

I don't know. It always strikes me that Scalia always tints the Constitution by applying the "will it hurt America" stance. I'm not being critical...but I'm often surprised how much he applies that criteria when discussing rulings in interviews. My wife was shocked that he was a supreme court justice when I told her based on how he was discussing it in one interview. I think that they all can't help but allow their backgrounds to affect how the interpret the document.
 
#32
#32
TennTradition said:
I don't know. It always strikes me that Scalia always tints the Constitution by applying the "will it hurt America" stance. I'm not being critical...but I'm often surprised how much he applies that criteria when discussing rulings in interviews. My wife was shocked that he was a supreme court justice when I told her based on how he was discussing it in one interview. I think that they all can't help but allow their backgrounds to affect how the interpret the document.
Click to expand...

When you cite foreign law to justify your decision, you lose all credibility.
 
#34
#34
TennTradition said:
Ahhh...but who needs credibility when your decision is where the buck stops and you have a lifetime appointment?
Click to expand...

And right there is what is so incredibly scary about having anyone appointed that will go all "liberal interpretation" on us.
 
#35
#35
hndog609 said:
Brother, that's not even close to "just" your opinion. It gets really frustrating to think that an amendment included in the Bill of Rights and quite specifically states "the RIGHT (keep saying that word 'til it sinks in) of THE PEOPLE (seriously, how is that interpreted any other way than what it says?) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As to the militia issue a "militia" is a government sanctioned and controlled entity, a little bit like the mondern National Guard. Why would the Constitution go to the trouble of specifically enumerating the government's right to have it's militia's armed?
Click to expand...

I do find of odd that phrases like "the right of the people to peaceably assmemble" or "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers" refers to the People.

But "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" somehow refers to the state?
 
#36
#36
TennTradition said:
:eek:lol: How do you suggest they uphold the constitution without first deciding what the constitution legally means? In that process, they must interpret because the constitution does not enumerate every single possibility that a clause may pertain to...it can't.
Click to expand...

no its not their job to interpret the constitution and they see it. it is their job to interpret the constitution as the people who wrote and agreed upon on it saw it. very easily done. read the personal writings of the founding fathers. they will tell you all you need to know.
 
#37
#37
onlyut4me said:
no its not their job to interpret the constitution and they see it. it is their job to interpret the constitution as the people who wrote and agreed upon on it saw it. very easily done. read the personal writings of the founding fathers. they will tell you all you need to know.
Click to expand...

There is always interpretation involved, unless the specific situation is spelled out in the constitution or in the writings of those who wrote the clause. And...that just doesn't happen in most cases. It isn't that black and white in most cases.
 
#38
#38
TennTradition said:
There is always interpretation involved, unless the specific situation is spelled out in the constitution or in the writings of those who wrote the clause. And...that just doesn't happen in most cases. It isn't that black and white in most cases.
Click to expand...

well if it isnt in the constitution and there are no personal writing covering the subject it is probably because it is none of the federal governments business and should be decided be the state.
 
#39
#39
OWB said:
People are going to kill themselves with something. If you take way guns, we'll just have to read about rope on down the road.
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to pull a trigger than it is to hang oneself. Guns make it too easy, and can be done in a second of desperation. Yes, if someone is really intent on ending it all, then it will happen, but let's not make it so easy for them.:popcorn:
 
#40
#40
onlyut4me said:
well if it isnt in the constitution and there are no personal writing covering the subject it is probably because it is none of the federal governments business and should be decided be the state.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it isn't addressed by the constitution...just that the specific situation isn't spelled out in detail (which it never is, really).
 
#41
#41
TennTradition said:
I'm not saying that it isn't addressed by the constitution...just that the specific situation isn't spelled out in detail (which it never is, really).
Click to expand...

i am talking about the many things the federal govt oversees that are not mention in the constitution. i just believe the federal gov't, especially the supreme court, over step their boundaries on many occasions. i just read the constitution again(while laboring threw a nashville sounds game). it is amazing to me to me how much power the supreme court has ceased that is absolutely unconstitutional. really, according to the constitution the federal gov't should be disbanded and started over due to the fact that 95% of what they do is unconstitutional. by the way, sorry it takes so long between post, that is what working 60 or so hours a week will do to you. oh well, got to do what you got to do i guess.
 
#42
#42
Just out of curiosity - what's the major stand on reason for gun ownership: 1) protection, 2) hunting, 3) other? I don't own a gun, never have, most likely never will. Just not my thing.
 
#43
#43
VolByBirth said:
Just out of curiosity - what's the major stand on reason for gun ownership: 1) protection, 2) hunting, 3) other? I don't own a gun, never have, most likely never will. Just not my thing.
Click to expand...

All of the above and exercising your rights afforded by our constitution.
 
#44
#44
VolByBirth said:
Just out of curiosity - what's the major stand on reason for gun ownership: 1) protection, 2) hunting, 3) other? I don't own a gun, never have, most likely never will. Just not my thing.
Click to expand...

While KB5252's answer is nigh perfect for a single sentence answer let's go a bit further.

Protection- As much as the MSM tries to dismiss this as a legit reason for personal ownership the use of private weapons for self defense FAR exceeds the amount most are aware of. You could spend a whole day going over examples cited from this one source. (personally I've got a 10mm Glock at arms reach every night)

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Hunting- I hunt but fully understand those who are not comfortable with it. Just remember, every time you grab a burger or peruse the meat isle for that perfect steak to grill you're in the club, you just had somebody else paid to do the dirty work. If anything hunting makes me feel like I earned it more.

Other- I'm always amazed at how many people can get sucked into shooting by merely doing it. There's a guy I know, friend of a friend kinda thing, who has a pretty pronounced left lean to him and never had much positive to say about guns, handguns in particular. I don't know how but somebody got him on a range and the next time I saw him he couldn't stop smiling when telling me about it. God forbid he ever gets himself on a skeet range. Anyway, LOTS of folks who would never keep a loaded gun in the house (protection) or consider hunting absolutely love target/wing shooting.
 
#45
#45
hndog609 said:
While KB5252's answer is nigh perfect for a single sentence answer let's go a bit further.

Protection- As much as the MSM tries to dismiss this as a legit reason for personal ownership the use of private weapons for self defense FAR exceeds the amount most are aware of. You could spend a whole day going over examples cited from this one source. (personally I've got a 10mm Glock at arms reach every night)

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Hunting- I hunt but fully understand those who are not comfortable with it. Just remember, every time you grab a burger or peruse the meat isle for that perfect steak to grill you're in the club, you just had somebody else paid to do the dirty work. If anything hunting makes me feel like I earned it more.

Other- I'm always amazed at how many people can get sucked into shooting by merely doing it. There's a guy I know, friend of a friend kinda thing, who has a pretty pronounced left lean to him and never had much positive to say about guns, handguns in particular. I don't know how but somebody got him on a range and the next time I saw him he couldn't stop smiling when telling me about it. God forbid he ever gets himself on a skeet range. Anyway, LOTS of folks who would never keep a loaded gun in the house (protection) or consider hunting absolutely love target/wing shooting.
Click to expand...

Makes sense -- thanks for the response. I'm not against gun ownership in and of itself. I like our ability to choose and if we restrict one thing, how far does it all go. However, I do think there is a larger cultural issue that puts gun ownership in the spotlight. Most violent crimes are crimes of passion and accessibility to guns promotes more deaths. HOWEVER, the gun is not the issue -- culturally Americans seem to be much more "kill happy" than others around the world. I'm not really sure why this is -- but it's not something that seems to be addressed.

While I won't own a gun, and I'd be upset if my child were killed by someone that had easy access to a gun -- the issue is not the gun.....it's the people. I think too often we do nothing more than blame or fix the symptoms instead of the actual problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top