.

Waiting periods

schulteschulte Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
I live in Connecticut where the gun laws stipulate that you must wait 14 days before buyin a gun. [:(!] This means that if you want buy a gun that has to be ordered, you not only have to go to the store, order the gun, wair for the gun to come in, you also have to go there WHEN IT COMES IN, NOT TAKE IT HOME, fill out MORE paperwork, and wait and ADDITIONAL 14 days.......regardless of whether or not it took 10 moths for the gun to come in.[:(!] [V][V]

Dont these laws suck or what?[xx(] They're just an attempt to stop the sale of guns by makeing it SO inconvenient and SO hard and SO comlex to buy a gun. [V]The only way around it is to have a permit, for which I applied but will not recieve for 90+ days.
«1

Comments

  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,367 ******
    edited November -1
    Sure am glad I do not live there.
    No waiting here. Take it home the same day.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What if you get a Curio and Relic License?

    No waiting period, pistola's are shipped overnight express. Even here in Californistan I can get a firearm overnight....Well until some politician reads this post and passes another law.....

    20-redcoats-firing.gif
    American's Right to bear arm's is the only reason we're here today.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    nitrouz; that was one of the funnier comments I have read for a few days about the legislator reading your comment and passing yet another unneeded law. Thanks for the laugh.

    Hey, while I got you on the line, can you reveal your last name? On one of your posts you mentioned that your military commander almost got you into trouble because of your last name and I am just curious what that last name is.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Connecticut sucks. It is among the kommonwealths you would never see me in.

    Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Holy Cow Nitrouz: Thanks for satisfacting my curiousity. I won't say more because you may desire your privacy as I would.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • schulteschulte Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    they just delayed it even more.....some crap about birth certificates. if i was really gonna go kill someone with a gun, a 14 day waiting period would not stop me. murderers do not buy liscenced registered guns from a liscenced FFL-they buy them off the street from some crack dealer who couldnt even COUNT to 14
  • kenneth and melissakenneth and melissa Member Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I may get bashed for this but.....I dont mind tough gun laws i think it does prevent some people that dont need a gun from getting one.How ever you are right about criminals buying guns off the street.Just y thoughts.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    K&M: Well yeah, having reasonable gun laws helps keep many of the crazy people from legally buying guns and on one hand that is a good thing because the worst kind of gun crime is one committed by a person who obtained it legally. Unfortuently it makes legal gun owners look bad when this happens. At least when a gun crime is committed and it is done by someone who didn't legally possess the gun, then the middle of the road people don't think to harshly towards legal gun owners anymore than they think harshly about car owners when a crime is committed with a stolen car. But if you look at the history of gun buying, laws, procudures, etc. for the last 40 years you will see that the laws have gotten tighter and tighter. Who knows how much harder it will become to purchase, shoot or store a gun? So from that stand-point I think it is a mistake to welcome laws and more laws.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    K&M: after thinking about it I feel I want to add some more to my above comment. I have found that most people who have a strong belief in gun rights for citizens, usually also believe all our different governments should be forced to follow the federal and state constitutions in ALL MATTERS UNTIL AND IF those constitutions are changed by the citizens, and believe that a minimum of laws should be imposed on citizens and that governments should have minimum power over the citizens, and bellieve that all power orginates with and flows FROM the people to the government; power DOES NOT come from the govt. to the citizens. With that in mind I have to admit there a handful of gun laws that I personally do not find overly restrictive. However, I have read an estimate some knowledgable person did about the fact there are approximately 20,000 different gun laws in the USA. To me this is way, way to many laws because it offers 20,000 ways for an otherwise honest gun owner to get into trouble. I mean if we want and need gun laws what is wrong with, just for an example, a few laws that cover a whole lot such as a law stating it is a crime to threaten or harm anyone with a gun. Or you can't have a gun if you are a drug addict or otherwise impaired, or have a criminal history of violence? Wouldn't a few simple laws cover every possible situation? And if that is true, then why do we need 20,000 laws?

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kenneth and melissa
    I may get bashed for this but.....I dont mind tough gun laws i think it does prevent some people that dont need a gun from getting one.How ever you are right about criminals buying guns off the street.Just y thoughts.



    And just who are WE to decide who does and DOES NOT need one?????????The constitution says NOTHING about NEED.....Geez!!!!!![:(!]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    longhunter, where the heck have you been hiding? Ducking bill collectors I'll bet (just kidding). I think they meant to keep guns from people who none of us want to have them, I don't think they meant the word "need".

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • kenneth and melissakenneth and melissa Member Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wow i had no idea there were that many gun laws,you made some good points tr fox , that does seem like way to many.I am no one to judge but........ I will have to anwser who are we to decide? Well think about it like this do you think people that have records such as robbers,rapist,murders and other's of this type should have guns? I dont .I also wonder as a parent how come these kids get there parents guns and take them to school?Do they not lock them up? Just my 2 cents
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    K&M. Everyone, parents or not, should take reasonable measures to keep unauthorized persons from getting to their guns. Anyone who has CLEARLY demonstrated that he/she is a violent or evil person should not have guns. In regards to your statement of "who are we to decide". If you two are good American citizens then you two are some of the PERFECT people to decide. I was talking with a young former US Marine who was in the corps for 5 years and whom I work with. He believes in gun and weapons rights for the good citizens. And this is a good attitude, but he still has it wrong. He has been brainwashed to feel that citizens are more or less "subjects" of the various governments and its different agencies such as the police. He seems to feel that we only have the rights and privlidges that those entities chose to give us. I tried to show him that all power flows FROM the people TO the governments and its agencies. The US President Bush, and the various state governors, legiselatgors, police departments, etc, are running on taxpayer money. Govt. has not money or power of its own. It only has what the citizens give it or are forced to give it. The only reason police carry guns is because the citizens, throught their representative have authorized them to do so. Citizens existed long before any govt. or police agencies. And to exaggerate to make a point, if all the worlds citizens suddently decided to become perfect and peaceable citizens, we could actually get rid of allgovernments and police. But you can never get rid of citizens because EVERYTHING is built on the backs of the citizens.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "I may get bashed for this but.....I dont mind tough gun laws i think it does prevent some people that dont need a gun from getting one."

    Tough gun laws have made myself unable to possess a semi-automatic rifle with more than a ten round magazine while living in the State of Californistan.....

    I'm a U.S. military member that isn't even a California resident.

    That's Homeland Defense Baby...

    Makes it kind of hard to defend California or the country doesn't it?

    20-redcoats-firing.gif
    American's Right to bear arm's is the only reason we're here today.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Waiting periods suck. If you know someone will try to kill you soon, you don't want to have to wait 15 days to get your protection. Also, speaking of protection, the ultimate (IMHO) form of protection would be an H&K MP5K-PDW, or an MP7-PDW. These are powerful guns that could protect you from a large group of attackers. However they are very difficult to legally get... If you want an MP7, you need to be registered as an FFL, get a license to manufacture, pay 1000 bucks each year, buy a semi-auto variant, and convert it to a full auto yourself. If you stop paying the 1000 bucks a year, you gotta sell it. However there are some machineguns that can be legally owned. Gotta find one that was registered before May 19, 1986, and go through a mountain of paperwork to get it. I plan to get a few of these.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    tr fox......Hiding?I know you were kidding you allready know me better than that.Nope,just busy...Trapping season around the corner,getting ready for winter,chasin kids to school and after school stuff etc. etc.Just...Life.Waiting periods to buy firearms make as much sense as waiting periods to get your nuts cut....geez...Its just another way to hassle you until you give up.
  • trstonetrstone Member Posts: 833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and loonies is CERTAINLY a good and sensible idea, but the real point here is that this country now has more than 2000 "gun laws" on its books, practically NONE of which do anything to truly prevent crime. Waiting periods are nonsense. If you're royally p*ssed off enough to want to do someone in, you'll make your move ASAP and with whatever's at hand, NOT just a gun. And there's another issue to consider: The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; by what leap of illogic does this permit the Government to require the peasants to ask permission of Caesar before they can have a sword?

    Here's a real original idea for you: How'sabout we punish the INDIVIDUALS who commit firearms offenses, rather than continuously slipping on new and tighter leashes on the law-abiding citizens who don't? It seems to me to be much closer to the spirit of what the Founding Fathers intended for our country that we should take away the rights of the guilty individual who commits the crime, rather than take away the liberties of a whole GROUP of people solely because of the actions of an individual or comparatively tiny handful of individuals. It also seems so common-sense that you'd think the people (and I use the word "people" here very charitably) in Government would say: "Why, that's obviously the way we should do it."
    But they don't.

    And why not, you ask?

    Simple.

    The Government, as it is currently constituted, is populated by a body of legislators of a Socialist bent who think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are merely gigantic typos; self-appointed social engineers who just KNOW that they know what's best for you and me, whether you and I want it or not. I've said it elsewhere on this forum, and I'll say it again: The key error in thinking about why these people pass the laws they do lies in assuming that they want to GOVERN. To "govern" would mean that they themselves would be subject to restrictions in their actions; the sad fact is, rather than 'govern', they act as though they want to RULE. To rule effectively, you have to disarm the peasants. So, you need to slowly, carefully blot out that pesky Second Amendment, being sure you disguise what your true intent is by using emotional buzz-phrases like "it's for safety" and "it's for the children" and "it's for the prevention of crime" and "it's not restriction, it's regulation."

    It's bullcrap, is what it TRULY is. They only hope the well-intentioned starry-eyed dopes in the general populace will just buy into the emotional feel-good component of their bilge, and not see past the smoke and mirrors to what they're REALLY doing---trying to make the U.S. into a Socialist clone of Europe, where Big Government is the boss and you're the monkey on the stick that jumps when they pull the string.

    After all, NOBODY here needs to own a gun, do they? Of course not. We have ever-vigilant, omnipresent police who are perfect and never fail to get their man---or woman. Our court systems are flawless, meting out the harshest possible penalties for criminal behavior, which never fail to humble and reform every malefactor into an upright citizen upon their release. A gun? What for? To protect yourself from what, pray tell? And why would you need to target-shoot or hunt? Don't you know target-shooting bespeaks a violent and cruel nature, and hunting is a barbaric pasttime which disrespects our animal bretheren? Shame on you.

    I apologize for the rant, but I'm SO sick and tired of having to beg Caesar's permission to get a sword, then have Caesar tell me how and when I can carry and unsheath the damned thing, that I have to let off a little steam now and then....And it REALLY bugs me when people come along and say things like "Gee whiz, I don't see what the fuss is about---it's for safety...or crime reduction...or for the children."
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    TR TR TR, do NOT apologize for making music to my ears. Thank you!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Mark, your logic is way above the head of most anti-gun, anti-constitutional people. But keep on trying.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Do they have waiting periods for those new gas fired nail guns yet?

    No?[:D][:D]



    20-redcoats-firing.gif
    American's Right to bear arm's is the only reason we're here today.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Bear in mind, this is America. I get so tired of brainwashed idiots saying, when they see one of my tyrant killing tools, "What do you need something like that for?" My answer: "This is America, damn it!! I don't have to buy something because I need it, so kiss my red, white and blue American *!!!" As far as I'm concerned, we don't need CD players or TV's or DVD's, or radios, either, and all those things infringe on a right, too... the 1st Amendment. But to me, a gun is way more useful than any of those other things.

    And I am not about to listen to the liberal limp-wristed pantywaists about giving up my guns "for the children". Until they show more respect for the unborn, their argument falls upon deaf ears, here, as all disingenuous arguments do.

    Nor will I listen to aristocratic Senators who want us beating our swords into plowshares, but are not themselves willing to do the same, right Senator Swinestein???

    Nor am I willing to listen to Sozialistic LEO's who do not believe I should have a gun until I have "justifiable need". Translation: "We tell you what you can have, and for what ever purpose you can have them for. If our answer is "nothing" and "never", it is your job to obey." (Insert gunphreak flipping the bird at these vile [email protected][email protected])



    Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • trstonetrstone Member Posts: 833 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    WHAT A DELICIOUS IRONY!!! Gunphreak, you've just exposed one of the most loathsome hypocrisies of the Liberals: We have to take guns away from everyone to protect the children---the ones we don't abort, that is.

    Where is it written in the Constitution that anyone has the right to own a gun?

    Second Amendment.

    (Ding! Ding! Ding!)

    Where is it written in the Constitution that everyone has a right to an abortion?

    Ummmm.......Errrr......Wait, lemme think here a moment.....Is it the Eleventy-Twelfth Amendment?

    (Bzzzzt!)

    No?

    Is it.....Pi over the square root of 2?

    (Bzzzzt!)

    Awwww, p'shaw!

    My friends, it is important to fully appreciate the point Gunphreak has raised here; the people who say they want to take firearms out of the hands of the citizens for "safety's sake" and "for the children" really DON'T CARE about safety (unless it's their own, as the Ruling Elite), and they SURE as heck don't care about "the children". They just don't like the idea of bush-monkeys like us being able to defend ourselves from their enlightened rule, if push ever came to shove. "It's for the children"? And this squares with their unwavering support for abortion "rights" HOW, exactly?

    Thank you, thank you, Gunphreak. You done made my day, boy!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Man, you two are GOOD! I only wish I could throw you into a debate with some of the anti-gun idiots so you could kick some liberal *!

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • spectre7spectre7 Member Posts: 965 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:"It's for the children"? And this squares with their unwavering support for abortion "rights" HOW, exactly?

    That's another issue entirely, and I believe that statements such as yours which apply a fallacy-laden sort of logic only serve to perpetuate the idea that gun-owners are narrow-minded and ignorant. Bear in mind that I'm attacking the statement and not you personally; if you would like to do some reading as to how exactly the idea of abortion and the idea of compassion for children can co-exist I suggest you read Singer's essays concerning abortion.

    Typos and profanity, oh my! http://www.funky-town.org
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I can agree spectre7.....to a point.The end result is that IF the churches and the Gov't and etc. did their jobs properly then the children having a bad or good life etc. would be a moot point at best.It has been an adage that THE CHILDREN are OUR future....if that is true then why do we not act like it? The children should ALWAYS come first....always and without exception.Do they? In this country....No! not by a long damn shot.They should but there is always some other thing more important...I have to agree with the premiss that if its FOR THE CILDREN then HOW can we have all kinds of things...leave Abortion aside for a minute folks.Ther are HUNGRY,Malnurished,Abused Children everywhere in this country as we speak.WHERE is the outcry?More kids die from accidents,auto and the like than are killed by guns.....WHERE is everyone then? If your gonna run the Its for the Children thing it should ALL be about the CHILDREN.ALL the decisions should be made daily with the children in mind.....the next generatins...ok I am rambling....I'M done.......L.H.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Here's a news flash. All children are God's children. No mortal has a right to dispose of one, for ANY reason. Get me, A N Y reason. You can argue your compassion angle, like a liberal, til your blue in the face, and it won't sway me. A child is conceived by God's own hand. Now if that child has, what we as humans perceive as problems, and it would make mom and dad's precious life more difficult, snivel snivel, oh well. Oh, but God probably made a mistake. Yea that's it, happens all the time. Listen up, it's either right or it's wrong, no gray areas, no justification. It's people straddling the fence that have made it possible for such a heinous act to become legal in a supposedly God-fearing nation. 40,000,000 murders and counting, and not one was justifiable in God's eyes. These staements should not offend anyone that is not in a defendable position, so if I offended anyone, I DO NOT apologize. Am I narrow minded? ok :-) And as far as "Singer's" essays, I have not read them myself, and
    from the little I've gathered from people sending me email saying "Singer says this and Singer says that", I would not enjoy that read, as only very liberal people that I know seem to be reading and quoting it. Anyway, we are totally off the subject now, and I apologize for that, but I could not in good conscience, let it pass.
    As far as waiting periods, convince all the female victims of rape and murder (little late for those) that were "waiting" for the ability to defend themselves, that waiting periods are ok. But to sum up the issue, completely unconstitutional, enough said.
  • spectre7spectre7 Member Posts: 965 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Forget your religion; that's the first step to be taken seriously in any discussion. You want to have faith-based beliefs? Fine, but don't expect YOUR religious beliefs and ideas of morality to hold up to any sort of logical scrutiny, nor to sway individuals who hold different and possibly more valid viewpoints.

    Children? What children? Surely you're not talking about the tissue that can hardly qualify as a sentient life form.

    But enough of that; the abortion argument is one that can be had in another thread at another time. The point is that your self-absorbed notions of a 'god-fearing nation' are part of the problem rather than the solution. Your 'god's eyes' don't have a thing to do with reality and only serve to color you as an irrational eccentric at best and as an intolerant fanatic at worst.

    You can't argue the case of the 2nd amendment, and in this particular regard the issue of waiting periods, and then hold up your personal notions of right and wrong with only "because god says so" as your backing. To argue one thing with logic and reason and another with your personal belief system is not only inconsistent by hypocritical.

    Typos and profanity, oh my! http://www.funky-town.org
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Again,I agree with you both.My faith says one thing but lets face it,This country has allready moved its government away from the very faith that set out to found it.That said,as far as our gun rights are concerned we must secure them how we may within the crumbling legal system of this country...I do believe that the moral step away from faith has helped tp bring us here.I also believe that waving that around ain't gonna change much....right or wrong....
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Well spectre, I believe all things come from God, including our inalienable rights that were laid down in the bill of rights, so that our leaders wouldn't forget about them, by God fearing men who by all that I have seen, were much much wiser than any of us. I guess that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    well, yeah, but who are I gonna blame when things out of mankind's control kill, injure and torment innocent children since the beginning of time? Somebody's gotta be at fault!

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    OK, how about a constitutional point of view for the sake of the unborns. (And not on the premise that we have diot Supreme Court (in)Justices basically stating for us all, "I don't really know what the law is, but this is what I think it is..." and legislating from the bench. This travesty was never made into law the way laws are supposed to be made, otherwise, it would not even exist.)

    1. All men are created equal. In that one statement is the basis that we.. all of us, are first of all, created, just like unborns, and we are all equal, and I dare say, from the minute they are created are equal. Therefore, we all deserve equal protection from the law.

    2. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should exist for all of us (obvious enough to most of us, but not sozialist engineers and liberal idiots). This is the cornerstone of this country, and some of the first words put into print in the infancy of our nation.

    3. There is no God-granted right (and there never will be) nor a constitutional right to kill anyone without cause or justification. This should include those that fall under equal protect of the law, including unborns. (Surprisingly, many of the same pro-infanticide movement are declared opposers of the Death Penalty. Kill the innocent, spare the guilty. Sick!!!)

    4. Amendment 9 reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Let's break this down a bit. "The enumeration in the Constitution" or "The things listed in the Constitution" and keep in mind, not a single right is observed in it (because, by definition, rights are for people, powers are for all levels of government), only powers granted by the people are listed. "Of certain rights", or any of them that could have meanings implied against it by some enumeration in the Constitution (2nd and 4th Amendment comes to mind here). "Shall not be construed (interpreted) to deny (withhold completely) or disparage (restrict) other(rights) retained (held) by the people (including the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the unborn).

    4. The perceived "right" of a mother to kill her unborn should not outweigh the clearly stated right of the unborn to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    Does it really bother me that some may find me narrow or close-minded? Absolutely not!! Why, because I don't need others telling me right from wrong. I already know. A fanatic? Nope. Perhaps with no basis, I may find myself asking questions of "why?" or "what am I doing?", but I find myself no less fanatical than my opponents who wish me to squander my birth rights or have them forced from me. I take comfort from the fact that the media attempts to lionize themselves by demonizing their foes on all angles, but my allies are more numerous than I may realize. To me, "Politically Correct" is always actually "politically corrupt". I am not about to turn away now. I would lose total credibility as a human being, and as an American Citizen, as well as, most importantly, a Christian, if I did. The Founders made it easy for me to hold arguments against the godless, simply because they framed the Constitution using Biblical Scripture (as much as the media and governement have tried to censor this tidbit of truth out, the fact of the matter remains, and shall always remain) as their moral basis for all inherent rights and selection of methods.

    Death to Tyrants!!! Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • spectre7spectre7 Member Posts: 965 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I really feel that this should be carried on in a more appropriate thread, but the problem of an appropriate forum aside; one issue we can't seem to communicate on is that fetus is not an infant/baby/child/person or any other word that can be used to denote a sentient life form. This is where the conflict lies so touting the contents of the bill of rights, which I agree are in grave danger right now, does not address the issue.

    What is in question here is the definition of 'human life', and I'm guessing based on what I've read that you, gunphreak, and you, jpwolf, are indicating that reconizeable human life begins at the zygote. I strongly disagree with your definition, but I doubt very seriously that I could forumulate an effective argument, especially limited as we are to this message forum.

    As for the founding fathers; for every pro-christian religious connection you can make there is likely an anti-religion/anti-church sentiment attributed to the same individual or one of this peers. However, I dare say, that you would have a very hard time substantiating your statement concerning the use of scriptures as quote:their moral basis for all inherent rights and selection of methods.

    Typos and profanity, oh my! http://www.funky-town.org
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I would have to respectfully disagree...If you go back in our justice system,allmost ALL the early decesions were made with bible in hand...that is fact.Those Justices generally made their ruling and then quoted the scriptures that led them to make them come to that decision.For over 100 years this was the accepted way.And also the designers of the constitution were allmost to a man devout Christians.It woudn't even Make sense that they didn't incorporate there belief system within the framework.......
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I am happy for anyone who believes in any good and peaceable religion. We're all looking for and in need of something to lean on to get us through this life. But regardless of what may have gone before, I DON'T want government, courts or laws based solely on ANY religion or religious beliefs. Because once you get that concept in place what if the face of America changes radically (it could happen with enough time) and we would find ourselves struggling under a Koranimal type of Government (Muslim)?

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    I am happy for anyone who believes in any good and peaceable religion. We're all looking for and in need of something to lean on to get us through this life. But regardless of what may have gone before, I DON'T want government, courts or laws based solely on ANY religion or religious beliefs. Because once you get that concept in place what if the face of America changes radically (it could happen with enough time) and we would find ourselves struggling under a Koranimal type of Government (Muslim)?

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.


    Geez fox,just how can you get there?I mean this country was founded that way,the declaration written that way,and yes the constitution as well....it worked allready for a VERY LONG time.The changes everyone seems to be complaining about seem to have all started in earnest when we started changing the building blocks of our gov't .by pulling Religion or shouls I say faith OUT of Gov't.If you love the founders and their principals,and I believe you do...it seems that you might be more open to this line of reasoning.I mwean after all the faith was intertwined with EVERY facet of their lives,and YES within the gov't ,the justice system and all.I guess they were wrong? Where doe sthat leave us on gun rights etc.?No offense intended at all...None,just my 2 cents,and you knew it was coning anyhow...L.H.
  • spectre7spectre7 Member Posts: 965 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
    -- James Madison

    "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    You can argue almost any side with quotations, but I must respectfully challenge your assertions Longhunter. Most of the evidence I have encountered in my own readings would indicate that the Greeks had far more influence than any biblical text.
    Typos and profanity, oh my! http://www.funky-town.org
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    test

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    I would sak then just WHY we had the In GOD we trudt on ALL our currancy,tho when that started escapes me right this moment.Also WHY for some 200 years when in a court we Swore to GOD to "tell the truth"'why congress opened in prayer,and indeed schools and sports events did as well.It seems the resoning here is that ALL these before this past generation fo "enlightned souls" were fools??? I do not indeed go along with christian dogma of the sort that would kill or maim in the name of religion,any more than I believe all muslims to be violent.That does not say however that the biblical principles are or were wrong,only that they were not followed like they should have been...I do not see where you come up with Greek influence as much as you say...there is some there,but again i ask you were the first 100-200 years of our judicial system wrong?Were the forst justices also fools? It seems to me as you look at todays Justices and there awards in the billions of dollars for suits etc.and the letting off easily of criminals I would ask which seem the most Foolish to you?I do not require that everyone believe in any God,I just ask that they RESPECT my right and how ,why and what this country was founded for.Instead of using the constitution to make us all believe something that I believe it NEVER intended.There was in the old days little to seperate church and state,if ANYTHING,they must have ALL been wrong?If the churches were ALL still involved and doing what the bible says ,those that belomg and need help(welfare) would be taken care of by them.And the elders would see to it that they needed it,not want,NEED.The Gov't would have MUCH less to do here,something that George was trying to implement to get SOME burden off the budget.he very fact that gov't has a welfare syaten at all is biblical in principal,tho it is a broken mess as it has become a political hotseat of votes,money and etc.Sorry but if you truly look with OPEN eyes you will see the christian,biblical principals all over,in and theu the gov't ...up until recently.Now the Big changes....suddenly we know what the founders meant ,more so than all the smart ones from the revolution thru Korea or so...does that actually make sense?It just doesn't to me.You see as far a s I am concerned it is just an extention of that ME generation,its all about me and screw anyone that gets in my way...I ,me,me,I,.Not to say you are a part of that....indeed I respect your postion,and yes I could OVERLOAD this system withh quotes to the contrary of yours....what would that accomplish?
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." -Thomas Jefferson. Hmmm... belief in God? YUP!
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    For I would rather be a servant in the House of the Lord than to sit in the seats of the mighty...Senator Alben W. Barkley

    I know that the Lord is always on the side of the RIGHT.but it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and THIS NATION should be on the LORD'S side. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

    I have lived sir,a LONG time,and the longer I live,the more convincing PROOFS I see of this truth-THAT GOD GOVERNS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN. Benjamin Franklin

    Men must be GOVERNED by GOD,or they will be RULED by tyrants.
    William Penn
Sign In or Register to comment.