Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: SNL attacks the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment

  1. #1

    SNL attacks the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment

    Saturday Night Live ceased being funny some time ago, so there really is no need to watch the show, but their political views are sometimes stunning. This week they took aim at the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment, giving us their leftist opinion of what the Founding Fathers would think of gun control today. An amazing feat, as Seth Myers seems to believe he is both a time traveler and a mind reader...

    The principles on which the Second Amendment were based have not changed at all, so Seth's opinion that the Founders would somehow change their minds is based on nothing more than the wishful thinking of a totalitarian tool, paving the road to Hell with his good intentions.

    Totally missing the point of the Constitution. Shocking.

    Since the Arizona shootings one of the leading topic of discussion has been more gun control legislation. ... Last Saturday Seth Meyers gave his own opinion on the matter in on a Saturday Night Live segment called “Constitutional Corner.”
    ...
    Meyers points out the absurd nature of asking what the founding fathers would have thought about the “right to bear arms” today. As Meyers puts it, the founding fathers would probably take days to wrap their minds around the idea of “cars” before they even considered how the Second Amendment applies today. At the time the Second Amendment was written the most advanced “arms” were muskets which took a trained soldier 5-8 seconds to reload. ... Guns simply did not present the same danger to society in 1787 as they do now in 2011. In reflecting upon this fact, Meyers argues that the Second Amendment should be fully respected as long as it is only interpreted within the context of the late 18th century.

    http://www.examiner.com/political-bu...cludes-muskets
    Links with video:

    http://normgregory.com/2011/01/16/sn...2nd-amendment/

    http://www.examiner.com/political-bu...-muskets-video


    This skit immediately followed, and is an example of what is supposed to pass for humor on SNL:

    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    At the time the Second Amendment was written the most advanced “arms” were muskets which took a trained soldier 5-8 seconds to reload. ... Guns simply did not present the same danger to society in 1787 as they do now in 2011. In reflecting upon this fact, Meyers argues that the Second Amendment should be fully respected as long as it is only interpreted within the context of the late 18th century.
    And those pesky canons?

    I don't recall any part of the 2nd Amendment saying "obviously we don't mean canons".

    Most large ships had enough canons and fire power that they could have wiped out whole towns.
    Definition of political insanity: Voting for the same people expecting different results.

  4. #3
    Nobody can load a fire a flintlock in 5 to 8 seconds. Well trained troops could fire at most 3 rounds a minute thus:

    V. Half-cock Firelock! 1 motion.
    Half bend the cock briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock.
    VI. Handle, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
    Bring your right hand short round to your pouch, slapping it hard, seize the cartridge, and bring it with a quick motion to your mouth, bite the top off down to the powder, covering it instantly with your thumb, and bring the hand as low as the chin, with the elbow down.
    VII. Prime ! 1 motion
    Shake the powder into the pan, and covering the cartridge again, place the three last fingers behind the hammer, with the elbow up.
    VIII. Shut, Pan ! 2 motions.
    1st. Shut your pan briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock, holding the cartridge fast in your hand.
    2d. Turn the piece nimbly round before you to the loading position, with the lock to the front, and the muzzle at the height of the chin, bringing the right hand up under the muzzle; both feet being kept fast in this motion.
    IX. Charge with Cartridge ! 2 motions.
    1st. Turn up your hand and put the cartridge into the muzzle, shaking the powder into the barrel.
    2d. Turning the stock a little towards you, place your right hand closed, with a quick and strong motion, upon the butt of the rammer, the thumb upwards, and the elbow down.
    X. Draw, Rammer ! 2 motions.
    1st. Draw your rammer with a quick motion half out, seizing it instantly at the muzzle back-handed.
    2d. Draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it into the muzzle.
    XI. Ram down, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
    Ram the cartridge well down the barrel, and instantly recovering and seizing the rammer back-handed by the middle, draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it as far as the lower pipe, placing at the same time the edge of the hand on the butt-end of the rammer.
    XII. Return, Rammer ! 1 motion.
    Thrust the rammer home, and instantly bring up the piece with the left hand to the shoulder, seizing it at the same time with the right hand under the cock, keeping the left hand at the swell, and turning the body square to the front.
    XIII. Shoulder, Firelock ! 2 motions.
    1st. Bring down the left hand, placing it strong upon the butt.
    2d. With a quick motion bring the right hand down by your side.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwar View Post
    And those pesky canons?

    I don't recall any part of the 2nd Amendment saying "obviously we don't mean canons".

    Most large ships had enough canons and fire power that they could have wiped out whole towns.
    Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?
    Of course - there was no such thing as an illegal weapon until 1934.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  7. #6
    SNL sucks. I miss Mad TV =(

  8. #7
    SNL has become far too political. Same with 30 Rock. Although funny at times, they're both partisan mouthpieces used to hammer home the left-right paradigm and continue the NBC status quo.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by amonasro View Post
    SNL has become far too political. Same with 30 Rock. Although funny at times, they're both partisan mouthpieces used to hammer home the left-right paradigm and continue the NBC status quo.
    There's nothing wrong with being political. It's partisanship that needs to die. SNL was awesome in the 90s. Even when it was political they made fun of both "sides".



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.
    I don't know about nukes (they shouldn't even exist) but I have nothing against tanks so long as they don't slow down traffic and fit in one lane. I wouldn't worry about the cannon no more than a gun sitting in someone's car. Either one can kill somebody.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Nobody can load a fire a flintlock in 5 to 8 seconds. Well trained troops could fire at most 3 rounds a minute thus:

    V. Half-cock Firelock! 1 motion.
    Half bend the cock briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock.
    VI. Handle, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
    Bring your right hand short round to your pouch, slapping it hard, seize the cartridge, and bring it with a quick motion to your mouth, bite the top off down to the powder, covering it instantly with your thumb, and bring the hand as low as the chin, with the elbow down.
    VII. Prime ! 1 motion
    Shake the powder into the pan, and covering the cartridge again, place the three last fingers behind the hammer, with the elbow up.
    VIII. Shut, Pan ! 2 motions.
    1st. Shut your pan briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock, holding the cartridge fast in your hand.
    2d. Turn the piece nimbly round before you to the loading position, with the lock to the front, and the muzzle at the height of the chin, bringing the right hand up under the muzzle; both feet being kept fast in this motion.
    IX. Charge with Cartridge ! 2 motions.
    1st. Turn up your hand and put the cartridge into the muzzle, shaking the powder into the barrel.
    2d. Turning the stock a little towards you, place your right hand closed, with a quick and strong motion, upon the butt of the rammer, the thumb upwards, and the elbow down.
    X. Draw, Rammer ! 2 motions.
    1st. Draw your rammer with a quick motion half out, seizing it instantly at the muzzle back-handed.
    2d. Draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it into the muzzle.
    XI. Ram down, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
    Ram the cartridge well down the barrel, and instantly recovering and seizing the rammer back-handed by the middle, draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it as far as the lower pipe, placing at the same time the edge of the hand on the butt-end of the rammer.
    XII. Return, Rammer ! 1 motion.
    Thrust the rammer home, and instantly bring up the piece with the left hand to the shoulder, seizing it at the same time with the right hand under the cock, keeping the left hand at the swell, and turning the body square to the front.
    XIII. Shoulder, Firelock ! 2 motions.
    1st. Bring down the left hand, placing it strong upon the butt.
    2d. With a quick motion bring the right hand down by your side.
    Yep, the average unschooled hillbilly could do this three times in a minute with loose powder involved, and not blow off his fingers... but men who read Latin and Greek would have trouble figuring out a car.
    Riiiiiiiight.



    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.
    Riddle me this... do you have any idea how much cost there is in a single nuclear weapon?
    What possible reason would there be for an individual to want one?
    The economics of the situation don't add up. If one Doctor Evil McBadnasty decided he wanted nuclear weapons, he's got to go through HUNDREDS of people in order to get one.
    Each one of which would have to make a moral judgment as to whether or not they want Doctor Evil McBadnasty to have it.

    No, sir, when it comes to larger weapons, the way to finance them is through theft by a system which has raised generations from birth to believe that it has the moral right to have and use them. A religion that has no moral problem with either the use of these weapons or tainting itself with state worship helps a lot, too.

    In order to ban these, you need to demonstrate first that it would be a problem, and second that it would not be solvable via market forces. Otherwise your argument can just as easily be applied to single-shot 22 pistols.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.
    At $4 mil for a M1A2 Abrams, you have limited how many people are going to own one due to cost, unlike the $25 cost difference between an AR15 and an M16.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  15. #13
    Don't you worry about the culture of fear that this might create? People driving around in tanks and flying by in Apache helicopters? Not that most people could afford these wonderful toys, but still. In the hypothetical world where people could, I don't think I'd be comfortable.

    I would have no problem with an organized militia armed with these sorts of things, but clearly anything that destructive would have to be tightly controlled, with strict licensing laws, etc.

    Sure, both guns and cannons/tanks/hellfire missiles can kill people, but some of these can kill way more people way faster than others.. I realize that this is the same sort of argument that proponents of the high-capacity clip ban are using. I guess I agree with them in theory, but would draw the line further down the road. I think refusing to draw the line anywhere gets you into pretty absurd territory... I mean, why restrict nuclear weapons, even?

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I mean, why restrict nuclear weapons, even?
    Good question. It would be a great deterrent to keep someone from breaking into my house.
    "..and on Earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out...while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited Earth." -- Jesus of Nazareth

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Riddle me this... do you have any idea how much cost there is in a single nuclear weapon?[...]
    Well, let's leave practicality out of it for now, I'd like to talk about a hypothetical situation if that's ok.

    In order to ban these, you need to demonstrate first that it would be a problem, and second that it would not be solvable via market forces. Otherwise your argument can just as easily be applied to single-shot 22 pistols.
    I realize that it is the same argument that gun-control advocates are using. But still... I do think that the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by HazyHusky420 View Post
    I don't know about nukes (they shouldn't even exist) but I have nothing against tanks so long as they don't slow down traffic and fit in one lane. I wouldn't worry about the cannon no more than a gun sitting in someone's car. Either one can kill somebody.
    But why tanks and not nukes? Because one is more destructive than the other, right? I'm just trying to get people to say that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The line you'd like lies somewhere between tanks and nukes, and that's fine with me. I just want to point out the necessity of drawing the line.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    Don't you worry about the culture of fear that this might create? People driving around in tanks and flying by in Apache helicopters? Not that most people could afford these wonderful toys, but still. In the hypothetical world where people could, I don't think I'd be comfortable.

    I would have no problem with an organized militia armed with these sorts of things, but clearly anything that destructive would have to be tightly controlled, with strict licensing laws, etc.

    Sure, both guns and cannons/tanks/hellfire missiles can kill people, but some of these can kill way more people way faster than others.. I realize that this is the same sort of argument that proponents of the high-capacity clip ban are using. I guess I agree with them in theory, but would draw the line further down the road. I think refusing to draw the line anywhere gets you into pretty absurd territory... I mean, why restrict nuclear weapons, even?
    When I was on active duty, having those things buzz around was perfectly normal, if expensive. Pressing the Start button on the tank sends up $30 in diesel fuel right there.

    I'll ask the same question I do to all of the only police and military should have folks:

    On October 11, of year X, I was on active duty and could order my unit to deploy with tanks and every other lessor weapon in the Army inventory. On October 12, of year X, I was no longer on active duty. At what time in the 24 hour period did I become no longer qualified to have access to those weapons?
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  21. #18
    What we need is non-violence, not weapon regulations. There is a difference.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    When I was on active duty, having those things buzz around was perfectly normal, if expensive. Pressing the Start button on the tank sends up $30 in diesel fuel right there.

    I'll ask the same question I do to all of the only police and military should have folks:

    On October 11, of year X, I was on active duty and could order my unit to deploy with tanks and every other lessor weapon in the Army inventory. On October 12, of year X, I was no longer on active duty. At what time in the 24 hour period did I become no longer qualified to have access to those weapons?
    Well, okay ... are you saying that a person should have to have training in order to be allowed to use such weapons? It sounds then that you're talking about laws prohibiting access to these weapons except if certain conditions are met. The specifics might be different, but in essence this would be a type of weapon control law.

    I'm not denying that citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm just saying that:

    A) There needs to be weapon control laws of some type. This could be background checks, required training classes, etc. Whatever is appropriate for the weapon system in question.

    B) The most lethal weapons need to be banned. This category might just include nuclear missiles, but at least this type of weapon needs to be in this category.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.
    Yes. Private Citizens were meant to be the defense of this country.
    There was never supposed to be an "army" but in time of need (common defense ) the militia was to be called upon.(The whole people armed)
    There was never meant to be a standing army, in fact it was strongly warned against.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  24. #21
    Nuclear weapons.

    I believe it should be perfectly legal for someone to have a nuclear weapon. They should also be responsible for paying insurance on that nuke that would cover the full cost were it to go off in a major metropolitan area.

    As for the cost...some kid made a nuke in his back yard out of old lightbulbs, smoke detectors and clock paint.
    Definition of political insanity: Voting for the same people expecting different results.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    Well, okay ... are you saying that a person should have to have training in order to be allowed to use such weapons? It sounds then that you're talking about laws prohibiting access to these weapons except if certain conditions are met. The specifics might be different, but in essence this would be a type of weapon control law.

    I'm not denying that citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm just saying that:

    A) There needs to be weapon control laws of some type. This could be background checks, required training classes, etc. Whatever is appropriate for the weapon system in question.

    B) The most lethal weapons need to be banned. This category might just include nuclear missiles, but at least this type of weapon needs to be in this category.
    Having had the training on pistols, rifles, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, chain guns (Bradley), tanks, and artillery, I'm saying that the notion that some form of required training makes the use of such weapons more responsible is erroneous. They are not hard to learn to operate, and if the Army tossed out the BS, a minimally functioning soldier can be trained in 30 days.

    There are responsible people and irresponsible people, and when the irresponsible people are met with overwhelming force by the responsible people, the matter is settled, and only the totally irrational (who obey no laws anyway) form the risk to society. There is no law that stops the irrational.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I'm just trying to get people to say that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

    I just want to point out the necessity of drawing the line.
    NO
    No line. The full military might of this country should rightly be in the hands of the people. Personally.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    This could be background checks, required training classes, etc.
    How is that compatible with a free market?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Yes. Private Citizens were meant to be the defense of this country.
    There was never supposed to be an "army" but in time of need (common defense ) the militia was to be called upon.(The whole people armed)
    There was never meant to be a standing army, in fact it was strongly warned against.
    That's why I put the State-militia part in there. I agree that we shouldn't have a standing army.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?
    Yes, and you can own one today with no paperwork other than signing a piece of paper saying the manufacturer is not liable if it blows up in your face.

    http://www.hernironworks.com/cannonprice.html

    http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons.html



    6-Pounder, Model 1841


    The Ordnance Board of 1841 drew up the design for this gun, which is one of the most common of all the artillery pieces of the Civil War. This gun was made by both the North and the South; and was made in both cast iron and bronze, though bronze was more common.
    Scale -- Full ; Bore -- 3 1/2 ; Length -- 65 1/2 ; Weight -- 850 ; Trunnion Diameter -- 3 5/8
    Scale -- 2/3 ; Bore -- 2 1/4 ; Length -- 43 1/2 ; Weight -- 250 ; Trunnion Diameter -- 2 3/4

    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.
    http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/la...ad=55823&cat=1



    Fantastic restoration project, 95%done. Reluctant sale due to lack of time. No sensible offer refused. Serious buyers please.

    http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/la...ad=55773&cat=1



    WW-II Survivor (05-1944). Built by Uralskiy Tankovyj Zawod May 1944. Used by former DDR troops. Ended active service as an monument. Hull and interior very complete. Turret and elevation system operational. All hatches there. Uncut armor. Only engine and some minor items missing. Excellent wheels, hubs, drums and tracks. Shipment in and outside Europe can be arranged including Export Permit, CoO. Price on request.

    http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/la...ad=55601&cat=1



    Immaculate condition with lot's of CES. P.O.A.
    See our web site www.marcusglenn.com

    http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/la...ad=53577&cat=6



    Wanted Czech M53 Quad Mount
    Your terms accepted, any condition, any location.

    ==

    You were saying?

    Hmm, nukes... yeah, I can see limits on them on earth, but thinking forward, a spacecraft might find having a few around useful.

    Before the 1968 Gun Control act, people were able to buy things like anti-tank guns, mortars, bazooka's and high explosive shells via the mail. The only paperwork required was your signed check. Hardware stores sold TNT and dynamite over the counter.

    -t

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    NO
    No line. The full military might of this country should rightly be in the hands of the people. Personally.
    EXACTLY. Besides, government employees scare me enough without guns.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    That's why I put the State-militia part in there. I agree that we shouldn't have a standing army.
    A militia is private people training with their own weapons.
    In my states Constitution,
    “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
    This is the militia.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    NO
    No line. The full military might of this country should rightly be in the hands of the people. Personally.
    It would still be in their hands, but in their hands as part of a citizen's militia. And the militia would be responsible for securing these arms so that people not authorized by the militia wouldn't be able to get their hands on them.

    If we're talking weapons that can devastate cities, there is a serious public safety risk involved. And insurance as was suggested a bit earlier isn't going to cut it! "I blew up New York, whoops!" "Well that's okay as long as you can pay for it..." WTF? I don't think that's okay..

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by CUnknown View Post
    It would still be in their hands, but in their hands as part of a citizen's militia. And the militia would be responsible for securing these arms so that people not authorized by the militia wouldn't be able to get their hands on them.

    If we're talking weapons that can devastate cities, there is a serious public safety risk involved. And insurance as was suggested a bit earlier isn't going to cut it! "I blew up New York, whoops!" "Well that's okay as long as you can pay for it..." WTF? I don't think that's okay..
    Well if we had put the $#@!in' Nazis that developed them in prison for war crimes instead of bringing them here and protecting them, this would not be an issue.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 06:26 PM
  2. Founding Father's Day-Dress up as Founding Fathers
    By DirectDemocracy in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 12:56 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 12:10 PM
  4. Founding fathers ad?
    By Johnnybags in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-19-2007, 09:15 AM

Posting Permissions

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