ChangoLanzao

And what exactly does that mean? I guess it means the only god possible is the Christian god? Seems kind of odd, but I think that's the only logical conclusion a person can draw from Ron's remarks. Who said that remark was logical? It's pure nonsense.

Obama is definitely disappointing, but the alternative would have been disastrous. The oil spill is Dick Cheney's fault [CLICKY ]and it's going to take a lot of work to undo the damage that criminal is still doing to our country.

They are gun nuts ... doing what gun nuts do.

Not to suggest that I agree with the police tactics in this incident (because I don't), but how many people did the police kill in this incident? Don It didn't cost one trillion dollars ... and none of the police died either!

What do you own? Why do you want to know? Because you opened the door by saying you own guns. I want to know what types. Many anti-gun people claim to own guns, but actually don't - they just say that to try and deflect arguments. So I want you to describe your guns to me to the point that I believe you're not just making that up. Are you afraid that the government will be watching this thread? Are your guns all properly licensed and registered? What do you have to be afraid of? So now you're calling me a liar? You're accusing me of being a criminal? BUG OFF!

If you don't have the arms to win and keep your freedom from your enemies, it doesn't matter how you think and relate. They don't give a damn about your thinking and relating. But feel free to try and talk a muslim suicide bomber out of committing an atrocity, by walking up to him as he's about to pull the trigger, and tell him all about your need to think and relate with him. Great. That's all we need in the U.S. is unregulated gun-nuts spotting what they think are would-be "muslim" suicide bombers and shooting them before they blow themselves up.

What do you own? Why do you want to know?

Ahhhh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VtaVXZMu-s Cut it out ... you'll make me cry!

Then let me ask you something. In all seriousness. If the government would simply crush any internal resistance by it's armed populace, why hasn't it done so in Iraq? Because the country is ungovernable, in large part, due to the fact that there are far too many armed NUTS in Iraq who believe that violence is the path to freedom and they are killing each other and us. War is not the answer. If the armed populace in Iraq prevails, do you really think that they would be free? Which "armed populace" are you referring to? The ones who think democratically or the one's who don't? It's not the guns that make us free, it's how we think and relate to each other that makes us free.

An interesting point. Thanks. At the time of writing, how would one know whether a gun owner was "trained"?

Thanks for the personal attack. BUG OFF! what's wrong? he hitting a little too close to the truth? and to consider the above a PA you're making several assumptions that aren't stated in the post. keep going... this is fun to watch. You're right it IS fun to watch The above was a personal attack. It was a bullshit statement about me, addressed to me. This thread is about gun regulation. I submitted that the government has the right to regulate guns. I backed it up. Several posters didn't like it, so they made personal attacks against me, brought in a bunch of irrelevant phony quotes, tried to change the subject so that now the argument is about perceived discrepancies in some statements that I made, and now they are frothing at the mouth spewing the same old nonsense about the Founding Fathers that I can read anytime in the propaganda that the NRA has been putting out forever. I am a gun owner. I believe the government has every right to and should regulate guns. I believe that people who think that they will be able to win their freedom, in this day and age, by threatening the government with their gun collections are NUTS. I also believe that the 2nd amendment is intended, as it says, to allow the states to maintain well "regulated" militias. I think the biggest threat to our freedom comes not from the U.S. government, but from "unregulated" militias consisting of paranoid hillbillies and angry Wingnuts who would justify domestic terrorism with phony "Founding Father" quotes taken out of context and dressed up.

Since that clause is explanatory, it's nearly irrelevant. The FF gave a clear definition and Congress has updated it much more recently. The vast majority of Americans on this forum are members of the militia. That would be the unregulated militia, correct?

Just admit you can't defend against them. The point is clear... the Founding Fathers supported the right of citizens to be armed. A position you disagree with, but are unable to defend. Every Wednesday my dogs are proudly convinced they won their argument with the garbage truck by hurling a constant stream of threatening verbalizations.

A time and a place for everything. You don't call the fire department to blow out a candle. Your constancy is off. You are fine with infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, but not 4th Amendment rights. The government has the right to regulate guns. You're putting words in my mouth.

Thanks for the personal attack. BUG OFF!

The founding fathers disagree with you... They seem to think the most dangerous thing to a Democracy is a guy like you. "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" -- Washington. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788 "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin More phony quotes cut and pasted from NRA literature. Why don't you actually try and put your case in your own words?

Please try to make your point without spewing forth a flurry of severely adulterated, conflated, and out-of-context "quotes" cut and pasted from NRA literature.

None succeeded over tyranny through the use of arms. All three succeeded, in the end, through peaceful means.

Police have already confiscated weapons in NY and in LA. In NY they used the registration rolls to track down the weapons in question. So, it is not a "ridiculous scenario that will never happen" Were those gun owners successful in using their weapons against the tyrannical government in order to secure their freedom? Why didn't they shoot? What good were their gun collections against the police? Your assumption is wrong.

It sounds like you have your mind made up too. What a load of crap! CLIKY

"people" = shareholders

You have your beliefs, and you stick to them. Bravo. Seriously. Good for you. I also hope that you never need to know someone with a gun. (for many reasons) Not all gun owners are nuts.

No.

There's nothing more dangerous to a democracy than a gun nut who thinks he's above the law.

Deportation was never an issue with Elian. Cubans who reach dry land--which Elian did but sadly his mother did not--are entitled to stay in the USA. All agreed that the decision as to whether Elian would stay was not the government's to make. The disagreement was in who was empowered to make that decision: the father, the Miami relatives, or Elian himself. Had all branches of the family been in agreement the courts/government would never have been involved at all. Elian would never have been deported. The only way for him to return to Cuba was in the custody of responsible family members--not the government--and that is what ultimately happened. The real question here is whether the policy of returning to Cuba those who are picked up at sea is a humane or fair policy. But Elian didn't fall into that group. OK ... thanks. In that case we were all very concerned about what was in the child's best interest, rather than just making a decision based on the technicalities of the law. That makes sense.