All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Chat about non-hiking topics. The least serious of the forums on the site!
User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3437
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Koda » May 25th, 2013, 7:01 am

Touche Kep. I Learn more from you than just the subject at hand trying to keep up with you. ;) Couldn't the 2A be considered independent clauses?

And then regardless, is there any historical reference to what the authors intent was behind it (not that I doubt grammar laws were different back then)? I've read supporting articles that it was the beliefs of the founding fathers that the citizens be privately armed, but maybe that was just pro gun propaganda!
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3437
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Koda » May 25th, 2013, 7:15 am

Koda wrote:(not that I doubt grammar laws were different back then)?
to clarify what I mean to challenge is, despite the proper or improper use of grammar back then what was the true intent of the 2A by the founding fathers? It would make sense that there could be slight variations in punctuation usage back then between the author, the penman, the printer IDK. Wasn't excessive punctuation common back then?
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6406
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by kepPNW » May 25th, 2013, 7:47 am

Koda wrote:Touche Kep. I Learn more from you than just the subject at hand trying to keep up with you. ;) Couldn't the 2A be considered independent clauses?

And then regardless, is there any historical reference to what the authors intent was behind it (not that I doubt grammar laws were different back then)? I've read supporting articles that it was the beliefs of the founding fathers that the citizens be privately armed, but maybe that was just pro gun propaganda!
Lots of propaganda on both sides, yeah. So much so, it's become what I call propadogma, now! Religious zeal beyond rational thought, for many.

I dunno, but I do give those guys credit for not wasting words. No metaphors, and darn little allegory. They were generally sparse to the point of frustration. People today have great trouble taking words for the literal meaning, always assuming there's subtext (if not subterfuge) involved.

I'd have trouble comprehending the first half of 2A as independent, myself. To me, it seems to clearly be a construction stating: "Because /this/ is so important, we see /that/ as necessary." I just can't see how that first half could be unrelated to the second half. (Nor, I'd suggest, would you find that construction anywhere else in the entire document?)

At the time, /this/ boiled down to the preservation of the slave economy down south. The role of state militias has indeed evolved over time, but the amendment hasn't. It's time for it to be repealed.

Hopfully, it's clear I don't hold originalism as sacred, huh? T.Jeff was a great guy in countless regards! But he also held his own kids as slaves. There's absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing, "The times, they are a-changin'!" :)

PS - "For the record," at no point in this thread have I said I am opposed to gun ownership. I simply favor rationalism and responsibility, which current interpretations of this amendment do not. Everyone here, even the absolutist, recognizes and supports legitimate cases of infringement.

PPS - A sure sign we're going to hell in a handbasket, though, is that "they" have duped everyone into caring more about this meaningless amendment than all the other ones that have been usurped since 9/11. Those are the ones that truly affect our daily lives, and their loss obliterates our freedom. Irrational fear rules. The terrorists have won!
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
Roy
Posts: 2824
Joined: January 25th, 2010, 6:35 pm

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Roy » May 25th, 2013, 8:12 am

Chase wrote: These are wonderful steps in the right direction. What are some additional ideas you might have to prevent lives from being taken by firearms? (I'm guessing this question will be ignored)
I think if we improve the socio - economic situation in the US we could lower the number of violent crimes simply said invest in our future.The war on drugs and banning hand guns are attempts at quick fix of the problem. It will take years to improve the situation of the people that feel no sense of hope or chance in this country. This is not an easy thing to do, we would first have to get our fiscal house in order and then decide as a people what is important for us to spend OUR money on.

The biggest investment we can make is improving the education of our children, and with the most homicides being with 17 to 24 year olds its hard to argue that one.


Homicides.
In 2010 USA homicides, guns were the weapon of choice, especially for multiple homicides.[26]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States (see graphs at right).[27] Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame.[28] The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males. Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[16][23] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[29][30][31]

Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it; however, most countries similar to the United States have a more secure social network. Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[28][32][33] However, developed countries with strict gun laws have essentially eliminated gun violence.[34][35][36][37]

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in low income urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[38] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[39] According to FBI statistics, the highest per capita rates of gun-related homicides in 2005 were in D.C. (35.4/100,000), Puerto Rico (19.6/100,000), Louisiana (9.9/100,000), and Maryland (9.9/100,000).[40] The Bureau of Justice statistics from 2004 do not include D.C or Puerto Rico.

Homicide rates among 18- to 24-year-olds declined since 1993, but remain higher than they were prior to the 1980s.[23] In 2005, the 17 through 24 age group remains significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms.[41] In 2005, 17- through 19-year-olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the United States.[42] This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed by firearm homicides.[43] This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses.[44] The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population,[42] while accounting for 22.5% of those killed by firearm homicides.[43] The 20 through 24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses.[44] Those under age 17 are not overrepresented in homicide statistics. In 2005, 13- through 16-year-olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the United States, but only accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims,[43] and 2.7% of overall homicide offenses.[44]

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[16] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[45] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[16][46] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[47]

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[48] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[49] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[50]

The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than some other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 per 100,000, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[51] Gun Homicides in Switzerland however are similarly low, at 0.52 in 2010[52] even though they rank third in the world for highest number of guns per citizen.[52]


The US Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide.

One would have to think better education leads to better jobs and healthcare would help lower the suicide rate. But on a personal note having a
family member who was Bi- Polar if it was not for our family there isn't much help out there. Many people with mental afflictions untreated self medicate. I can only imagine what its like to be three or fours days without sleep wasted in the manic phase of Bi-Polar.

Thanks for listening.
Last edited by Roy on May 25th, 2013, 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
The downhill of the mind is harder than the uphill of the body. - Yuichiro Miura

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3437
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Koda » May 25th, 2013, 8:46 am

kepPNW wrote:At the time, /this/ boiled down to the preservation of the slave economy down south.
The argument supporting this is new to me, but a quick look indicates a valid subject. I still dont agree though... I mean, the Revolution had a lot going on to make it happen and win our independence. Slave trade was common back then and wasn't the immediate issue at hand. We know that not all of the founding fathers favored slavery, even back then and probably before the revolution there were probably many that despised it. World solutions are never easy to resolve. I have no doubt that if the founding fathers or whoever led the revolution attempted to tackle slavery, we would not have won our independance. It was essential to gain support of the southern colonies to win the war as southern votes were necessary for ratification, thus slavery was protected in the states where it existed! IMO, it is no coincidence that the civil war was took on so soon after the birth of our new country, I have no doubt it was not the intention of our founding fathers to preserve slavery. Regardless, the law cannot be ignored because one considers the practices of lawmakers at the time disagreeable or immoral by today's standards.
Lots of propaganda on both sides, yeah. So much so, it's become what I call propadogma, now! Religious zeal beyond rational thought, for many.
that's one of the reasons I stated that maybe my sources are propaganda. I do try to have a bipartisan understanding, which is difficult to decipher through... bipartisan articles is hard to come by. In my fair understanding I have been convinced the 2A is not just about the national guard.
(Nor, I'd suggest, would you find that construction anywhere else in the entire document?)
the third amendment... ?
PS - "For the record," at no point in this thread have I said I am opposed to gun ownership. I simply favor rationalism and responsibility, which current interpretations of this amendment do not. Everyone here, even the absolutist, recognizes and supports legitimate cases of infringement.
This is probably just my own understanding, but I think even the majority of the gun community understands that nothing in the 2A prohibits reasonable regulations of use. We do have laws regarding them that make sense. What I would be curious to hear is what you (Kep) think is a good way for a person to exercise their use of guns with respect to all... How do you give someone the freedom to bear arms without infringing on that ability?
PPS - A sure sign we're going to hell in a handbasket, though, is that "they" have duped everyone into caring more about this meaningless amendment than all the other ones that have been usurped since 9/11.
Isn't this in part what the 2A is all about? I agree with the sentiment, but not that the 2A is meaningless. Perhaps its the 2A that has kept whats left of our constitutional rights together this whole time.... (hypothetical scenarios come to mind...)
FWIW: I think both sides of the fence get tunnel vision on the 2A, but they all are in concert.

Kep, i do owe you a thanks for challenging my knowledge on the subject. It's important to revisit the foundation of what a person believes in from time to time, it puts your faith in check and allows one to grow from new perspectives. Cheers.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
Roy
Posts: 2824
Joined: January 25th, 2010, 6:35 pm

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Roy » May 25th, 2013, 9:05 am

nwtrailape wrote: Tom/Roy would just talk the bad guys to death.
What do you expect I cant hardly run or thro a punch Will :lol: I should probably be carrying a gun some places I go,really dont think I will start now just dont feel the need.
The downhill of the mind is harder than the uphill of the body. - Yuichiro Miura

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6406
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by kepPNW » May 25th, 2013, 11:16 am

Koda wrote:
kepPNW wrote:At the time, /this/ boiled down to the preservation of the slave economy down south.
The argument supporting this is new to me, but a quick look indicates a valid subject. I still dont agree though... I mean, the Revolution had a lot going on to make it happen and win our independence. Slave trade was common back then and wasn't the immediate issue at hand.
Don't mistakenly conflate the Bill of Rights with the Revolution. The BoR wasn't adopted by Congress until 1789, or ratified by the states until 1791. There was a lot of compromise involved, and the 2nd was included to appease the southern states who were afraid of a national militia growing stronger, and having a different agenda, than their own.
Koda wrote:We know that not all of the founding fathers favored slavery, even back then and probably before the revolution there were probably many that despised it.
I can't agree that's universal understanding. Or that, if it were, it's anything more than supposition based on modern mores. I simply don't know that, myself, though it could sure be the case.
Koda wrote:Regardless, the law cannot be ignored because one considers the practices of lawmakers at the time disagreeable or immoral by today's standards.
As Peder pointed out, "the law" as these men put down, was designed to adapt with/to the times. It was a brilliant design, and we do them a disservice by not using it responsibly.
Koda wrote:
(Nor, I'd suggest, would you find that construction anywhere else in the entire document?)
the third amendment... ?
Heh, man, that's a lot of commas! Definitely one of the more obscure ones, and nearly entirely irrelevant to today's world, huh? I don't see two independent clauses, though - can you help me there? (I agree they could've used two sentences, though that would've required some repetition which they didn't generally favor!)
Koda wrote:This is probably just my own understanding, but I think even the majority of the gun community understands that nothing in the 2A prohibits reasonable regulations of use.
I think so too, and yet I hear that feeling expressed about 1/10 as often as I hear "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?!?" Another argument for repeal - making clear we all have a common understanding.
Koda wrote:What I would be curious to hear is what you (Kep) think is a good way for a person to exercise their use of guns with respect to all... How do you give someone the freedom to bear arms without infringing on that ability?
I think we were doing just fine until the NRA started it's scare tactics, and everyone started carrying concealed, a few decades ago. I'm not sure how to roll back time, at this point. Maybe start by recognizing the NRA as a terrorist organization and treating it as such? Their contributions have been nothing but destructive under recent leadership.
Koda wrote:
kepPNW wrote:PPS - A sure sign we're going to hell in a handbasket, though, is that "they" have duped everyone into caring more about this meaningless amendment than all the other ones that have been usurped since 9/11.

Isn't this in part what the 2A is all about? I agree with the sentiment, but not that the 2A is meaningless. Perhaps its the 2A that has kept whats left of our constitutional rights together this whole time.... (hypothetical scenarios come to mind...)
No! To put it as simply as possible, the notion of an armed resistance to our government is ludicrous. You can't even (to be wholly hyperbolic) board an airplane anymore without your 13-yo daughter being threatened with a government sponsored breast exam. Guns haven't helped in any way/shape/form preserve any of our rights, hypothetical or otherwise. You could, however, conclusively demonstrate that allowing irresponsible people access to guns has diminished our rights. This entire debate has done nothing but distract from the freedoms that are being swept away left and right. You live, work, and hike in a 4th Amendment-free zone, enabled by an Orwellian "Patriot Act"! The argument you offer is NRA macho posturing designed to puff up the egos of people willing to make contributions to their political agenda. Seriously. You think that guy in Tiananmen Square would've had any better luck against that tank if he'd had an AR-15? We have sold our rights wholesale in exchange for an illusion of security.
Koda wrote:Kep, i do owe you a thanks for challenging my knowledge on the subject. It's important to revisit the foundation of what a person believes in from time to time, it puts your faith in check and allows one to grow from new perspectives. Cheers.
Thanks! Likewise. :)
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
Crusak
Posts: 3607
Joined: August 6th, 2009, 7:33 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by Crusak » May 25th, 2013, 1:05 pm

I think we were doing just fine until the NRA started it's scare tactics, and everyone started carrying concealed, a few decades ago. I'm not sure how to roll back time, at this point. Maybe start by recognizing the NRA as a terrorist organization and treating it as such? Their contributions have been nothing but destructive under recent leadership.
Since the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, crime rates have gone down dramatically. I'm sure there are a lot of factors involved there. Concealed carry permit holders aren't the ones out there murdering people. Gangbangers and criminals are.

I don't recall ever hearing of someone who lawfully carried concealed committing a weapons crime. It's just so extremely rare that people who qualify for a concealed carry license commit a crime with a gun. Most of the people in my county that get their concealed carry license revoked have done something dumb like a DUII, not a gun crime. (can you tell someone is a bit sensitive about stigmatizing concealed carry, hehe?)

I think there are valid reasons to stand up to the gun-ban crowd (like the NRA has done). It's like a football game - if your linemen don't put up good resistance, you'll see your team get demolished. What I'm seeing is an overreaching government trying to limit and discourage gun ownership, and pro-gun groups fighting back just as hard. I think it works that way in politics. I've sent more emails to my elected representatives in the past year than ever before, on all sorts of issues (including gun rights).

Some of the statements from people like the mayor of NYC and the police chief of San Diego have alarmed me very greatly! Both of those men want to see 100% gun confiscation within our generation, and they've both declared that it will happen. A recent poll showed that 29% of Americans think that armed revolution may be necessary to preserve our liberties. That's nearly 1/3 of the country. Here's a hint: not a single LEO I know would act to support any gun ban. It just won't happen. So I'm not currently worried about that issue. What alarms me more is the strong efforts being made to teach the next generation that guns are bad and must be eliminated from society.

I have several friends and family members that are preparing for the worst - they look into the future and see our economy on the verge of collapse, and they're scared. They're buying ammo and stocking up on food. They're making emergency plans in case of civil unrest. Lots of these friends and family work in law enforcement. They're not crazy people or extremists. The things they see on the job and in their communities is causing them to fear for their families. We have record numbers of unemployed and record numbers of people on government assistance. What happens when the balloon bursts and there is no government assistance? You'll have serious chaos, rioting and lawlessness. Personally I think it doesn't hurt to have a plan in place for any disaster, whether it's man-made or a natural disaster. I'm taking that approach, more of a broad disaster preparedness plan (stocking up on food, etc). No, I haven't dug a bomb shelter under the floor of my garage :lol:
Jim's Hikes

Solvitur Ambulando

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6406
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by kepPNW » May 25th, 2013, 1:52 pm

Crusak wrote:
kepPNW wrote:I think we were doing just fine until the NRA started it's scare tactics, and everyone started carrying concealed, a few decades ago. I'm not sure how to roll back time, at this point. Maybe start by recognizing the NRA as a terrorist organization and treating it as such? Their contributions have been nothing but destructive under recent leadership.
Since the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, crime rates have gone down dramatically. I'm sure there are a lot of factors involved there. Concealed carry permit holders aren't the ones out there murdering people. Gangbangers and criminals are.

I don't recall ever hearing of someone who lawfully carried concealed committing a weapons crime. It's just so extremely rare that people who qualify for a concealed carry license commit a crime with a gun. Most of the people in my county that get their concealed carry license revoked have done something dumb like a DUII, not a gun crime. (can you tell someone is a bit sensitive about stigmatizing concealed carry, hehe?)
Okay, gotta get this outta the way right up front! I wasn't associating those who carry concealed with gun violence! I was marking a point in time, with that reference. I see that point in time, as one where society's outlook changed. One mark of that change was the "sudden need" to carry guns, in particular concealed guns. To make sure I'm being clear, this point in time was when fear overtook rationality as a guiding principle in our culture. It was the triumph of style over substance, led by a very charismatic far-right-wing politician who shall go unnamed so as not to set off the whacko alarm bells. ;)
Crusak wrote:Some of the statements from people like the mayor of NYC and the police chief of San Diego have alarmed me very greatly! Both of those men want to see 100% gun confiscation within our generation, and they've both declared that it will happen. A recent poll showed that 29% of Americans think that armed revolution may be necessary to preserve our liberties. That's nearly 1/3 of the country. Here's a hint: not a single LEO I know would act to support any gun ban. It just won't happen. So I'm not currently worried about that issue.
How do you reconcile "alarmed me very greatly" with "won't happen" and "not worried"? That's what I really don't get.

(You gotta admit that poll sounds ridiculous, no? I'd be interested in a cite, if you feel it was valid and worth a good look-see.)
Crusak wrote:What alarms me more is the strong efforts being made to teach the next generation that guns are bad and must be eliminated from society.
I don't want to get into "good" versus "bad." Too easy to lose good friendships that way. :)
Crusak wrote:I have several friends and family members that are preparing for the worst - they look into the future and see our economy on the verge of collapse, and they're scared. They're buying ammo and stocking up on food. They're making emergency plans in case of civil unrest. Lots of these friends and family work in law enforcement. They're not crazy people or extremists. The things they see on the job and in their communities is causing them to fear for their families. We have record numbers of unemployed and record numbers of people on government assistance. What happens when the balloon bursts and there is no government assistance? You'll have serious chaos, rioting and lawlessness.
I'm not sure I could've made any more eloquent argument that the NRA is a terrorist organization than that! :lol:

(Hope you'll re-read what you wrote, and laugh with me? :) Those feelings you describe certainly sound to be those of terror. I swear to you, people not heavily influenced by right-wing rhetoric really don't begin to feel this way. The alternative perspective is that it's the constant drumbeat of negativity on Fox, et al, that instills insecurity and encourages discontent.)
Crusak wrote:Personally I think it doesn't hurt to have a plan in place for any disaster, whether it's man-made or a natural disaster. I'm taking that approach, more of a broad disaster preparedness plan (stocking up on food, etc). No, I haven't dug a bomb shelter under the floor of my garage :lol:
A question as ancient as reason - how much insurance is enough? I'm not very worried about tornadoes here, although they are certainly a very real risk. I think you prepare for the most likely scenarios (eg, earthquakes, forest fires), and hope that a calm reasoned response to unexpected ones will help should the "imponderables" occur.

I know you're a reasonable guy, so if anything I said above hits wrong, then I probably just didn't say it right. I feel like Peder warning again about avalanches and cornices, but no disrespect (or anything else negative) intended! Most important to me is getting back to the trailhead in one piece, along with my friends. :)
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
forestkeeper
Posts: 1291
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 8:31 pm
Location: Oregon City
Contact:

Re: All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

Post by forestkeeper » May 25th, 2013, 2:43 pm

:) Maybe you should dig one Jim. There must be a reason for all of the coffins and ammo the government is stocking up on. A revolution is closer than we imagine. But I'm afraid so many of you are right. The recent gun ownership disputes and the mass shooting crimes are an illusion of a bigger picture of our government disarming its citizens. But do any of you really think it will matter? Once the certain Executive Order is in place, our own military, Army and Air National Guards included, along with all civil authorities will be ordered to disarm us by force. Anything that we currently have in our possessions will be of no match. Unmanned drones will take many of us out 1st, then the manned military and civil authorities will kill many of us with biological weapons. FEMA has been preparing for this for the last few years. On the one hand, many of us know where to go in such an event......the woods and mountains. On the other hand, many others (and you know who I'm talking about) will rat your location to the authorities. The communist left have always existed and will always be at war with the right wing extremists. By all of these threads and posts, we know whom each of us belong to already. After each of us are done reading and corresponding, and the laptops and PC's are turned off, we each know that what I said is true. But does it matter?

I guess if I was a dictator and I wanted the total control of the people, I would first turn them AGAINST each other. Being everyone is armed, the greater ones are you with concealed weapons, it won't be hard to achieve that strategy. Then after many of you are dead from battling each other, I would drop biological chemicals on the rest of you, then after the "dust" has settled, the military would go in and take over the rest of you.

I think Potato is also right to a certain degree. The Constitution meant something once, but now, the government is free to rewrite it or create a new one, at everyone's expense. The government no longer asked permission from its people. It just does as it pleases with no punishments. They are already rewriting history. And sure, we can learn from history, but the majority of you have already turned your backs on what is right and wrong. What is right and wrong? By today's standards, anything against the principles of the current US Government, is wrong.

Each of you can quote laws, rights, appeals or the Constitution until each of us are blue in the face. But none of that matters now. Obama and the government that he has erected, on the orders of a select few that actually run the country behind the scenes, will do what they want regardless of those laws.

It sure looks bleek doesn't it? :cry:

Post Reply