Most important election in decades re. future Supreme Court nominations.

[Daddie O]

I think the miserable ones are those that cannot accept the fact that freedom means you are just as free to not do something you don't like or agree with, as you are free to do the things you enjoy.  You do not have to ban or take the freedoms you don't enjoy or agree with from those that do, you simply choose not to exercise them.

This extends to religion as well as firearms,  free to practice or not, it is up to you.

I don't want to take away your right to be an idiot and vote for obama, clinton, or sanders, I simply choose to not do it, while allowing you to be free to do so and be a fool if that is what you enjoy.

Very much not miserable,
skinhead

Very well said! That's a hard lesson for the left to learn.

Exactly how is that a hard lesson for the LEFT to learn??!  Wasn't it the RIGHT that had/has opposed the 14th Amendment, universal suffrage, women's rights, gay rights, etc etc? 

So the left wants to block gun rights, and that's a rallying cry that THEY have been the "oppressors"?

Wow.  Just...wow.  And they say that minorities have a victim mentality.

Three points:

1) Not a single Democrat in the house OR senate voted for the 14th amendment.
2) The 2nd Amendment is, by far, the most important because, without it, all the others are just words on paper.
3) I agree that ALL rights should be respected. All of them. For everyone. Total believer in the NAP here.

1)  In the days of the 14th amendment vote, the Democrats were the right and Republicans the left
2)  Your assertion is false.  All amendments are important, the 2nd is no more important.  To say that words on paper don't matter unless a gun is backing them up is hooey.
3)  I love NAPS too.  yawn...zzzzz....

[Oss]

The 1st 10 got us thru the time from the continental congress and
an impotent federal government and into the Republic, the United States of America with its 3 branches of government

Those 1st 10 are the bill of rights and they sit next to my desk with the constitution (as a pamphlet) for any client to read if they so choose

In this case I dont believe all amendments are equal but I agree they are all the law of the land

Cant have the 2nd without understanding the 3rd

And unfortunately the 10th has since the time of the 14th gotten stepped on pretty badly by all 3 branches, especially the judiciary

All that came after the 1st 10 were from the congress, not the framers of the constitution

edit
Yes, Without the 1st 10 there would be no USA.  Its that simple, really !
So yes, you can call them super amendments if that floats your boat.
you and many are not so far apart as one may think, at least you understand the value of concealed carry and the value of being able to protect one's self and family. 

And I love grannies who carry. Bless their hearts

[dinosnake]

And the "framers of the constitution" was the "Continental Congress", a group that created, for our country, an intentionally extendable legal framework that could be modified to cover contingencies that they did not or could not foresee at their point in history.

I'm sorry, but as was said every single amendment is exactly equal in importance to one another, believing that the first 10 are Super Amendments because they were written by some purported gods almost 250 years ago is bull.  The writers knew they were just men and wanted to create a legal document where all people could live free.  What has changed is our acceptance of who comes under the legal label of "all people", and how that had forced us to accept that they should and must be allowed into the same rules.  To avoid conflict, or simply outright denial, the understanding of those people's similarities was codified into written law.  

It is not "special" rights, it is the same rights simply put down that yes, they have them as well.

Of course we should have the right to arm ourselves for protection.  The question is: did that amendment give the right to unlimited armament, or do we interpret that "militia" clause a bit.  For example, I believe that everyone should have the right to a long gun and that states or cities that limit then are in the wrong.  I would like to have (another) long gun in the house right now, for protection, but where I live has deemed them illegal.  You really can't covertly attack, or at least conveniently walk down the street without attracting unwanted attention, carrying a long gun and I feel they are quite safe.

Handguns should be legal but licensed.  There are too many questionable people out there to let things go willy-nilly.  Yes yes, legality is only honored by those who believe in the law but if that were the only case to worry about, that criminals ignore laws anyway and they only prevent honest people from doing good things, why have laws at all?  Just have anarchy and let the best shot win.  We have to start somewhere if you want even some limited form of civilization.  Saying that we can never, ever get control of illegal weapons is utterly defeatist and I thought America could do almost anything?

Military-influenced weapons, with excessively large clips or extreme calibers, should be either licensed or, if we can't handle that, yes, banned.  You don't need a 16-shot cartridge to protect your family or hunt a deer, sorry, let's get real here.

So I want reasonable discussions on some reasonable thoughts to try to help reasonable people solve some of our problems.  But there are a lot of absolutionists out there, all or nothing, black-or-white, my way or no way at all...welcome to modern America, folks.

[Serk]

I believe that everyone should have the right to a long gun and that states or cities that limit then are in the wrong.

Military-influenced weapons, with excessively large clips or extreme calibers, should be either licensed or, if we can't handle that, yes, banned.

[Valkorado]

"You don't need a 16-shot cartridge to protect your family..."

Says who?  You?

Sounds like you are fine with everyone owning a lever action sporting rifle, but not with folks having anything that could actually defend their families.  If you are (incorrectly) interpreting the 2nd as applying to militias, would you limit their capability so that they had no chance whatsoever against tyrannical forces?  And, if gangs of armed thugs or terrorists took to the streets, would you limit the people's right to defend their homes against them?

[DirtyDan]

AGAIN I say if guns are bad how would you deal with them ?

with MORE guns

all animals are created equal......some animals are MORE equal than others

dan

[Robert]

Well heard an interesting thing O has already applied to be the head of the UN. Now if that happens be prepared to have UN start to come in and confiscate your guns ESPECIALLY IF HILLARY WINS. So if O appoints a judge and head of the UN then Hillary wins, we could be really screwed.

[Skinhead]

Handguns should be legal but licensed.  There are too many questionable people out there to let things go willy-nilly.  Yes yes, legality is only honored by those who believe in the law but if that were the only case to worry about, that criminals ignore laws anyway and they only prevent honest people from doing good things, why have laws at all?  Just have anarchy and let the best shot win.  We have to start somewhere if you want even some limited form of civilization.  Saying that we can never, ever get control of illegal weapons is utterly defeatist and I thought America could do almost anything?

Military-influenced weapons, with excessively large clips or extreme calibers, should be either licensed or, if we can't handle that, yes, banned.  You don't need a 16-shot cartridge to protect your family or hunt a deer, sorry, let's get real here.

So I want reasonable discussions on some reasonable thoughts to try to help reasonable people solve some of our problems.  But there are a lot of absolutionists out there, all or nothing, black-or-white, my way or no way at all...welcome to modern America, folks.

Typical BS.  We all see how well laws requiring people that drive to have insurance works, or even licenses for that matter.  People ignore the laws especially when they are not enforced or there is little or no consequence to disobeying them.(see hillary clinton, fast and furious,  obama, Ferguson protesters, trump rally protesters)

One of the intents of the second amendment is to resist tyranny, if the standing army of a domestic or foreign power has automatic weapons with high capacity mags, you should be able to have them as well, if you can afford them.  And since it is a constitutional right, the government should pay for them. (see obama care, cell phones, college education)

If you are little old lady in East St. Louis trying to protect your home from riot/protesters, a bolt action rifle that hold 5 rounds may work, but a semi auto with a 30 round mag would work better.  Granny may not have the best accuracy, but you know best, you can decide for her.

[baldo]

Well heard an interesting thing O has already applied to be the head of the UN. Now if that happens be prepared to have UN start to come in and confiscate your guns ESPECIALLY IF HILLARY WINS. So if O appoints a judge and head of the UN then Hillary wins, we could be really screwed.

Well, as hard as I look, I can't find any reputable sources talking about this. There are probably better things to spend time thinking about.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Well heard an interesting thing O has already applied to be the head of the UN. Now if that happens be prepared to have UN start to come in and confiscate your guns ESPECIALLY IF HILLARY WINS. So if O appoints a judge and head of the UN then Hillary wins, we could be really screwed.

Well, as hard as I look, I can't find any reputable sources talking about this. There are probably better things to spend time thinking about.

Baldo, I think you have been looking in the wrong places. Oh wait you did say reputable . 

[dinosnake]

Typical BS.  We all see how well laws requiring people that drive to have insurance works, or even licenses for that matter.  People ignore the laws especially when they are not enforced or there is little or no consequence to disobeying them.(see hillary clinton, fast and furious,  obama, Ferguson protesters, trump rally protesters)

One of the intents of the second amendment is to resist tyranny, if the standing army of a domestic or foreign power has automatic weapons with high capacity mags, you should be able to have them as well, if you can afford them.  And since it is a constitutional right, the government should pay for them. (see obama care, cell phones, college education)

If you are little old lady in East St. Louis trying to protect your home from riot/protesters, a bolt action rifle that hold 5 rounds may work, but a semi auto with a 30 round mag would work better.  Granny may not have the best accuracy, but you know best, you can decide for her.

And that's a typical living-in-the-past answer.  "Oh, I need automatic weapons to resist the possible tyranny of my government!"  And, then, what will the government, when they really want to make a point, roll in with?  Tanks, helicopters, RPG's, tear gas, flamethrowers, incendiaries...and bombs.  Including tactical or even strategic nuclear, if we're talking about outright invasion.

Bringing up 19th century solutions for a 21st century reality in defense of a static, non-adjustable belief won't get you far in the modern world.  This is the point of every person except a conservative: Wake up, it's the 21st Century.  Things, reality, life, has changed.  Either keep up or deny it exists, but it'll move on without you all the same.  

Do I believe in gun rights?  Yes, sure.  Like I said, I had a long gun and wish I could have one right now.  How about a handgun?  Yes, I've even shopped for them but yes, I was not able to buy one because I did not hold a license and yet I fully agree that handgun licensing is not unreasonable.  If you are legal then you'll get that license and there won't be an issue, now will there?  But some states do make it extremely difficult and I'm not thrilled about that - it should be "reasonable", but not impossible, to get that license.

Open carry?  Please.  Go ahead and pretend that it's 1850's Wild West but sorry, it isn't.  If you do concealed carry I actually have no problem with that, and have known people who do and held no personal judgement against them.  If you want to "Speak softly and carry a big stick", as long as you play by the rules, respect others and honor the system and all the people in it, do it to your heart's content.  I'd rather have law-abiding concealed carry holders, who because they take the time and effort to maintain a low profile, protecting people when they feel they have to, rather than some gung-ho wanna-be Wild West hotshot who feels that he/she has to put the gun on their hips because "something just might happen"...and then going out and looking for it.

[baldo]

Well heard an interesting thing O has already applied to be the head of the UN. Now if that happens be prepared to have UN start to come in and confiscate your guns ESPECIALLY IF HILLARY WINS. So if O appoints a judge and head of the UN then Hillary wins, we could be really screwed.

Well, as hard as I look, I can't find any reputable sources talking about this. There are probably better things to spend time thinking about.

Baldo, I think you have been looking in the wrong places. Oh wait you did say reputable . 

Ruh roh......

[Skinhead]

Typical BS.  We all see how well laws requiring people that drive to have insurance works, or even licenses for that matter.  People ignore the laws especially when they are not enforced or there is little or no consequence to disobeying them.(see hillary clinton, fast and furious,  obama, Ferguson protesters, trump rally protesters)

One of the intents of the second amendment is to resist tyranny, if the standing army of a domestic or foreign power has automatic weapons with high capacity mags, you should be able to have them as well, if you can afford them.  And since it is a constitutional right, the government should pay for them. (see obama care, cell phones, college education)

If you are little old lady in East St. Louis trying to protect your home from riot/protesters, a bolt action rifle that hold 5 rounds may work, but a semi auto with a 30 round mag would work better.  Granny may not have the best accuracy, but you know best, you can decide for her.

And that's a typical living-in-the-past answer.  "Oh, I need automatic weapons to resist the possible tyranny of my government!"  And, then, what will the government, when they really want to make a point, roll in with?  Tanks, helicopters, RPG's, tear gas, flamethrowers, incendiaries...and bombs.  Including tactical or even strategic nuclear, if we're talking about outright invasion.

Bringing up 19th century solutions for a 21st century reality in defense of a static, non-adjustable belief won't get you far in the modern world.  This is the point of every person except a conservative: Wake up, it's the 21st Century.  Things, reality, life, has changed.  Either keep up or deny it exists, but it'll move on without you all the same. 

Do I believe in gun rights?  Yes, sure.  Like I said, I had a long gun and wish I could have one right now.  How about a handgun?  Yes, I've even shopped for them but yes, I was not able to buy one because I did not hold a license and yet I fully agree that handgun licensing is not unreasonable.  If you are legal then you'll get that license and there won't be an issue, now will there?  But some states do make it extremely difficult and I'm not thrilled about that - it should be "reasonable", but not impossible, to get that license.

Open carry?  Please.  Go ahead and pretend that it's 1850's Wild West but sorry, it isn't.  If you do concealed carry I actually have no problem with that, and have known people who do and held no personal judgement against them.  If you want to "Speak softly and carry a big stick", as long as you play by the rules, respect others and honor the system and all the people in it, do it to your heart's content.  I'd rather have law-abiding concealed carry holders, who because they take the time and effort to maintain a low profile, protecting people when they feel they have to, rather than some gung-ho wanna-be Wild West hotshot who feels that he/she has to put the gun on their hips because "something just might happen"...and then going out and looking for it.

1) I never said a word about open carry.  You say you support gun rights, if you do why should they be limited to what you think some one should have.  There are many shooting events that employ semi automatic weapons, and large capacity magazines are required to complete the course.  These are sporting events, law abiding citizens, why restrict their freedom to pursue the things they enjoy?  Instead SEVERE punishment for gun crimes.

2) I agree you wouldn't stand much of a chance against artillery, smart bombs and nuclear weapons, but why reduce your odds further buy limiting citizens to bolt action single shots?  How about the folks that live along the border in AZ, that our current administration refuses to protect.  They are going up against drug cartels that our president and his administration illegally sold the same weapons you want to ban to.

3) As far as reality and changes in life go, you can have what is currently going on, I don't have to accept your or anyone else's reality, and freedom means it isn't forced on you.  Freedom means I will do my thing and you do yours, not you do yours and because you don't like mine, you make mine illegal.

[hubcapsc]

It is funny to see the way people talk about the 14th amendment. It was
designed specifically to punish the South, to give the franchise to people
whose votes the North could control, and it was carefully constructed
to prevent making citizens of the many Chinese on the west coast:

          "The Amendments to the Constitution now pending seek to make citizens
              of the United States of all men born in the country of lawful age...It makes
              citizens not only of the pet negro but also of the filthy Chinese."
                 Sen. Johnson,
                 The Congressional Globe,
                 3rd Session, 40th Congress pg. 1067 (1868)

Naturalization laws were used keep the 14th amendment, as passed, from
giving the franchise to the Chinese, and that lasted until 1898...

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

-Mike

[Roadog]

  Serk, those are some pretty Grand Baby's you have there. I have 14 Grand Baby's so far and a Great Grand Son. also  three Daughters and a Son. They are ALL awesome !  Wonderful kids .  I just want to leave this place as free for them as it was left for me.

Solo1 whenever I am asked "why do you feel you need to carry that big gun"  I tell them "because a Cop is too heavy" . Always ends it, they have NO answer to that.   

Ride safe out there,...
 Roadog

[Serk]

  Serk, those are some pretty Grand Baby's you have there. I have 14 Grand Baby's so far and a Great Grand Son. also  three Daughters and a Son. They are ALL awesome !  Wonderful kids .  I just want to leave this place as free for them as it was left for me.

Solo1 whenever I am asked "why do you feel you need to carry that big gun"  I tell them "because a Cop is too heavy" . Always ends it, they have NO answer to that.   

Ride safe out there,...
 Roadog

Thanks for the kind words, but they're not grand kids, they're mine... By Valk owner standards I'm a young 'un I think, although I sure don't feel young at 44.

And when someone asks why I feel the need to carry all the time, I give 'em a pic of those same kids, because those kids need to have their daddy.

[Robert]

Great example of the importance of the appointed judge.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-contraception-idUSKCN0WP0A9

Supreme Court faces 4-4 split in Obamacare contraception case


The Supreme Court on Wednesday headed toward a possible 4-4 split over a legal challenge by Christian nonprofit employers who object to providing female workers insurance covering birth control as required by President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

An evenly split ruling, with the court's four liberals backing the Obama administration against the four conservative justices, would leave in place lower-court rulings rejecting challenges brought by the Christian organizations that oppose providing contraception coverage for religious reasons.

[baldo]

Great example of the importance of the appointed judge.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-contraception-idUSKCN0WP0A9

Supreme Court faces 4-4 split in Obamacare contraception case


The Supreme Court on Wednesday headed toward a possible 4-4 split over a legal challenge by Christian nonprofit employers who object to providing female workers insurance covering birth control as required by President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

An evenly split ruling, with the court's four liberals backing the Obama administration against the four conservative justices, would leave in place lower-court rulings rejecting challenges brought by the Christian organizations that oppose providing contraception coverage for religious reasons.

Sounds good to me.

[Gavin_Sons]

If I want a new handgun I go down to the local store, pick it out, do my paperwork, pay and go shooting the same day, in most cases within an hour of walking in the store.  I have many guns and carry mainly concealed but every once in awhile I get the big guy out for some fresh air. Sometimes ill carry 1 concealed and 1 open just because it's my right to do so. Oh and my big ones hold 16 + 1 and always carry an extra magazine or 2 with me also. When seconds count the cops are minutes away. I have 2 small boys to go home to, their dad will not be shot down in the streets without a fight. We are not required nor is there a system in place in Indiana to register any gun you purchase.  The 2nd amendment isn't #2 just because thats the second thing they thought. The amendments are in order of importance. If you actually read the whole document you will notice as the list goes on each number is of lesser importance than the one before it. Domt get me wrong, each and every one is very important to our country. Anyone willing to change it needs to be jailed for treason. Or hung at the nearest courthouse at high noon on saturday