Crazy people are people too.. (but u can't tell libs that)

[republicanchick]

Watch out

the libs will use this "crazy person" nonsense to cut your Second Amendment rights out from under you.

You libs

Don't like someone's political views?

Do the Lois Lerner on 'em

as in: label them Crazy...

Thank you, Reagan, for ackowledging that the "mentally defective" are people too... and have

drum roll

RIGHTS

The only people who should not have access to guns are those who have shown they are VIOLENT... and/or support violent groups like ISIL and etc...



___

 

[Rusha]

Watch out

the libs will use this "crazy person" nonsense to cut your Second Amendment rights out from under you.

You libs

Don't like someone's political views?

Do the Lois Lerner on 'em

as in: label them Crazy...

Thank you, Reagan, for ackowledging that the "mentally defective" are people too... and have

drum roll

RIGHTS

The only people who should not have access to guns are those who have shown they are VIOLENT... and/or support violent groups like ISIL and etc...

Andrea Yates didn't have a history of violence ... and yet, you would allow her access to a gun?

 

[Sitamun]

I rather feel that this is a personal bee in RC's bonnet. I mean I know she starts a thread on everything, but this one isn't the usual, I saw this on the bottom scroll on Fox News issue.

Call me a liberal nazi but while I find that while properly medicated schizophrenics are lovely people, but I still wouldn't want them to have access to a fire arm in case they ever go off their meds. I admit it isn't a perfect system, but few things are and yes it should be looked over and administered better.

 

[republicanchick]

Andrea Yates didn't have a history of violence ... and yet, you would allow her access to a gun?

Oh, I forgot... we are supposed to find a way to make a Utopia... a world where there is absolutely NOTHING wrong... no crime, no hate...

good luck with that one...




___

 

[Buzzword]

"Crazy" people are people, and most people shouldn't have access to a deadly weapon if we took the time to be honest with ourselves instead of knee-jerking emotionally to anything which contradicts our childhood indoctrination.

 

[republicanchick]

"Crazy" people are people, and most people shouldn't have access to a deadly weapon if we took the time to be honest with ourselves instead of knee-jerking emotionally to anything which contradicts our childhood indoctrination.

dumb

again, you 2nd Amendment haters are saying that people who have issues (gee, not many of them in society) have no right to defend themselves or their loved ones..


if u dont want to defend yourself or your family, fine... but quit trying to take the rights of others to do so away


selfish

 

[Sitamun]

dumb

again, you 2nd Amendment haters are saying that people have no right to defend themselves or their loved ones..


if u dont want to defend yourself or your family, fine... but quit trying to take the rights of others to do so away


selfish

Personally I don't hate the second amendment. However, it also must viewed from the time it was written. There was no standing army and no police force. The cities weren't nearly as densely populated as they are now, and there was also a lot more "danger" at the "frontier". Also, they had muskets. Do you know how long it takes to reload a musket? And that it had to be reloaded after each shot? A lot has changed in this nation since that amendment was written. Making certain caveats to it shouldn't be seen as the word of the devil, it's why they are called AMENDMENTS.

 

[republicanchick]

Personally I don't hate the second amendment. However, it also must viewed from the time it was written. There was no standing army and no police force. The cities weren't nearly as densely populated as they are now, and there was also a lot more "danger" at the "frontier". Also, they had muskets. Do you know how long it takes to reload a musket? And that it had to be reloaded after each shot? A lot has changed in this nation since that amendment was written. Making certain caveats to it shouldn't be seen as the word of the devil, it's why they are called AMENDMENTS.

normally, the Constitution and the rights it enumerates

are not changed merely b/c there are problems in society

true story...

(also, President Washington got together an army.. so don't get that no standing army nonsense)

_

 

[Sitamun]

normally, the Constitution and the rights it enumerates

are not changed merely b/c there are problems in society

true story...

(also, President Washington got together an army.. so don't get that no standing army nonsense)

_

Washington's army was made up from the men of the colonies. Farmers, merchants, etc. They were not soldiers. They came together to fight the British. When the war was won, they went back to their homes and families. Thus, no STANDING army. Also, are you really this dense? I'm talking about technological advances, manifest destiny, genocide, the industrial revolution, not "problems in society". That is an entire different ball of wax that we can discuss separately.

 

[republicanchick]

Washington's army was made up from the men of the colonies. Farmers, merchants, etc. They were not soldiers. They came together to fight the British. When the war was won, they went back to their homes and families. Thus, no STANDING army. Also, are you really this dense? I'm talking about technological advances, manifest destiny, genocide, the industrial revolution, not "problems in society". That is an entire different ball of wax that we can discuss separately.

lie

u were saying that the Constitutional right to bear arms should somehow be changed just b/c of the way society operates...

is that logical?

no

not only illogical but unAmerican

_

 

[Sitamun]

lie

u were saying that the Constitutional right to bear arms should somehow be changed just b/c of the way society operates...

is that logical?

no

not only illogical but unAmerican

_

So there should still be slavery? Or that african americans should just be counted as 3/5th's a person or perhaps not even citizens? Women shouldn't be able to vote? Also, we shouldn't have a presidental and vice presidential ticket? The runner up would be VP. No income tax, No voting rights protection, No presidential term limits, No primaries or right to vote in a primary election, No order of succession in case of death of president and/or VP. That's just some of the "additional" amendments made after the ratification of the constitution. There is also prohibition and the repeal there of. Plus more.

 

[republicanchick]

So there should still be slavery? Or that african americans should just be counted as 3/5th's a person or perhaps not even citizens? e.

when i SAY that, then you can start your usual accusatory tone

until then, why dont you just go away

+++

 

[Sitamun]

when i SAY that, then you can start your usual accusatory tone

until then, why dont you just go away

+++

So you admit that the constitution HAS been changed several times simply because society has changed or recognized "societal problems" and we as a nation have dealt with those issues with changes (ie amendments) to the constitution. I'm actually trying to have a discussion here and hopefully educate if needed. I wasn't really accusing you either, just pointing out all the changes made to the constitution since it was ratified, and that we can all agree they were good changes (prohibition not withstanding). However, most of these changes were fought for by tooth and nail and were not universally applauded. The founding fathers themselves couldn't agree on everything.

Firearms in the days of the revolution are NOTHING compared to what we have now, and if you recall, it was stipulated that the right to bear arms was to be able to recall the militias if needed, because there was no standing army.

 

[republicanchick]

So you admit that the constitution HAS been changed several times simply because society has changed or y.

i believe you are certifiably insane. This post (what i read of it... this first sentence) is just downright bizarre ..in its non-sequitor-ness

and etc..



+