Another one to weigh in on
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Another one to weigh in on

  1. #1

    Another one to weigh in on

    National Parks Traveler, a special interest group regarding the National Parks, reports on the stand taken against the Park gun regulations change by the Association of National Park Rangers.

    http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...gun-laws-parks

    Also, this one is from the Rapid City Journal

    http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/arti...rue#commentdiv

    Let them know what you think. I did:

    Why? Because gun control simply doesn't work - look at Trolley Square, Westroad Mall, Va Tech, crime statistics, murder rates and dozens of other examples. Now that it has been defeated in SD, contemplate the NIU situation. The man killed himself before police got there. The victims had no chance. Again the law disarmed the victims. As someone else said above, ask yourself why no one ever tries these things at a police station or military base.

    Yeah, all pro-second amendment people (Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, Mason, Adams, etc.) are stupid illiterate rednecks. Such a shame that the rest of the citizens have those pesky rights isn't it? Good thing we have people like some of those above to think for us, isn't it? But wouldn't it have been a lot easier if they had just put one person in charge, told them to raise their children right and let them takeover when the parent got older? Wait, that was what we had before 1776! How could we have been so stupid?!?

    The truth is that legally licensed/permitted carriers, who have already been checked by the appropriate law enforcement authorities are far less likely to commit felony weapons crimes than others. As for the Texas statistics, that is old news from the first few years the concealed carry laws went into effect. For the last 10+ years the data is overwhelming that gun-free zones and states attempting to restrict guns have significantly higher crime rates than those who don't. As for voting for efficient legislators who don't waste time, I agree, they should have left the 2A alone in the first place given its proven lack of influence on safety and crime.

    If you truly believe this right should not exist, then quit playing your stupid games and actually try to implement the process used to secure the freedom of slaves, experiment with prohibiting alcohol, grant women the vote, address discrimination and so on. Why don't you? Because you know it won't pass through the ratification process. The Constitution is clear, but the anti-gun groups feel this is too important to trust to the process set out by the founders of our country and keep trying to use legislative action to restrict constitutional rights always citing the same refrain, we need action now and that people are too supid to understand that this is for their own good. This has been going on for 20 years! How many times could they have tried to do a constituional amendment since the first blathering began about this issue?
    Last edited by ecocks; 02-20-2008 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Adding in another link with a response
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    How do you add a comment? I could find no link to do so.

  4. #3

    Think you have to

    register on the site. I did but had not reveived my activition email before bedtime.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

  5. #4
    [QUOTE=ecocks;15194]...
    <snipped>
    "If you truly believe this right should not exist, then quit playing your stupid games and actually try to implement the process used to secure the freedom of slaves, experiment with prohibiting alcohol, grant women the vote, address discrimination and so on. Why don't you? Because you know it won't pass through the ratification process." <snipped>

    My reply to this train of thought on the other thread...

    I'd like to take a slightly different slant here... it's been my contention for more years than I care to think about that the BoR is not subject to the amendment proccess that applies to the rest of COTUS. In as much as the rights enumerated therein are described as inherent, existing before the document, they are therefore not amendable/recindable. I vehemently believe that this is a position we must stress at every opportunity... to do otherwise is to invite the possibility of a "recind..." movement by the anti-s, especially if, come November, we lose what little control we now have...

    Howard
    NRA Life Member, NRA Firearms Instructor, Range Safety Officer
    SC CWP Instructor
    GrassRoots GunRights SC - the only choice for SC

  6. #5

    We'll see

    what the SCOTUS says and then how it plays out.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast