LaPIERRE ON MEET THE PRESS

alinwa said:
Simple, factual exegetical reading of The Constitution of The United States,...
Click to expand...

"Exegetical???????" Can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm dead wrong and an "exegetical" reading says that the 1994 assault rifle restrictions were unconstitutional and we must not consider similar restrictions now. Or maybe it's unconstitutional to restrict 30-round magazines? If so, I apologize. Very sorry. Please forgive me. If not, please inform me.
 
vicvanb said:
No one here is talking about banning individual gun ownership (and please don't revert to the slippery slope argument which is pure nonsense). Clearly, reasonable restrictions on assault rifles and high capacity magazines do not infringe on second amendment rights. The fanatics want to make it into that but it just doesn't wash.

My, how great it must be to know someone else's beliefs, never having met them or conversed with them! And how easy it is to put a label on someone in an effort to discredit or marginalize them. Sad, really.

But hey, Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

OK vic......... "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"shall not be infringed"

"infringed"

Infringed is a WORD vic, and as such IT MEANS SOMETHING!!

Here's what it means.

in·fringe·ment (n-fr nj m nt) n. 1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach. 2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

Now, do we need to get into "encroach?" DO WE NEED TO GO THERE??? It's LIMITING vic, it's TAKING AWAY RIGHTS vic.......... I say "there's been enough infringement!" And that the fact that you and others around me are OK with the government taking away my rights bothers me. This is MY opinion and if that "marginalizes" you I can't help it.

I didn't "label" you, I've simply listened to you. YOU SAID, quote, "Clearly, reasonable restrictions on assault rifles and high capacity magazines do not infringe on second amendment rights."

YOU said that.



Ohh, and BTW, this is a "conversation." We are "conversing" here, again, by definition. :) You'd like to somehow add weight to a one-on-one private conversation, make it "real conversation" somehow..... but unbeknownst to you WE'VE BEEN CONVERSING! :) And I'm certainly not "marginalizing you" by listening to you and understanding what you're saying. It's called "disagreeing" vic, I DISAGREE with you.

God Bless you vic, and Merry Christmas to you and yours.

al
 
ex·e·ge·sis noun \ˌek-sə-ˈjē-səs, ˈek-sə-ˌ\
plural ex·e·ge·ses

Definition of EXEGESIS

: exposition, explanation; especially : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text
Examples of EXEGESIS

<a psychobiography that purports to be the definitive exegesis of the late president's character>
Origin of EXEGESIS

New Latin, from Greek exēgēsis, from exēgeisthai to explain, interpret, from ex- + hēgeisthai to lead — more at seek
First Known Use: 1619
Related to EXEGESIS
 
vicvanb said:
..............

My, how great it must be to know someone else's beliefs, never having met them or conversed with them! And how easy it is to put a label on someone in an effort to discredit or marginalize them. Sad, really.

But hey, Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

Vic,
If you don't expect people to know your beliefs and opinions, why are you posting here? In fact, I've found over 15-20 years of reading people's posts and opinions on boards and emails such as this I probably know them better than I would have in face to face conversation. People tend to boil things down and use as few words as possible to convey what they think in these kinds of forums.

You've been quite clear about what you think. Just own it. There's not much point in back peddaling now. We all know what you are. If you are marginalized, it's because it is your choice and not due to something someone here has said.

Rick
 
vicvanb said:
"Exegetical???????" Can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm dead wrong and an "exegetical" reading says that the 1994 assault rifle restrictions were unconstitutional and we must not consider similar restrictions now. Or maybe it's unconstitutional to restrict 30-round magazines? If so, I apologize. Very sorry. Please forgive me. If not, please inform me.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna' try this another way :)

First of, the entire text of the 2nd Amendment. I keep the Constitution close to hand.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

IMO that's clear, simple and to the point. It's TOO clear for most people, it just gives us TOO MUCH FREEDOM!!!

Scary...... who's gonna' look after us? :(

So let's examine another thorny issue, women's suffrage. We The People drafted an amendment to our Constitution, it reads thus: again, in it's entirety.

Amendment XIX.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Note again one of them terrible caveats, "or abridged." "Or abridged" is suspiciously familiar eh??? Sounds kinda; like "shall not be infringed."






Now WHAT IF we've made a horrible mistake by allowing female people to vote? WHAT IF by allowing them to vote we get results like the 1994 assault rifle restrictions and presidents like Obama? WHAT IF, to "fix" this mess we were to pass legislation saying "OK, OK, women can vote just as long as they vote like their husbands." or, howsa'bout "OK, women can vote in local elections but not for POTUS?"



I'll stop now with this example because I'll NEVER be able to straighten out all the twisted "interpretations of what I'm saying" if I go further BUT, please read the Second Amendment in it's entirety and then you tell me......IS IT Constitutional to slop together goofy little emotionally bent rulings like "the '94 assault weapons ban" and make them stick only because people are too apathetic and uninformed to STOP THEM?

"All that's necessary for evil to prevail, is that good men do nothing"


Now, you've made it clear that you believe more restrictions will "stop the horror" (ughhhh, that rolls my guts just to type it) but I ask you, are you willing to trample the Constitution to do it? We know for fact that Obama is. He's stated clearly and for the record that he has no problem with endrunning the Constitution.

Most Americans are perfectly happy to bend the law to suit their agendas....

I'm not.

al
 
sorry..but the supreme court has ruled just the opposite.
us being the malitia, are to have access to modern current firearms...like the mil has...
do some research...

mike in co

vicvanb said:
No one here is talking about banning individual gun ownership (and please don't revert to the slippery slope argument which is pure nonsense). Clearly, reasonable restrictions on assault rifles and high capacity magazines do not infringe on second amendment rights. The fanatics want to make it into that but it just doesn't wash.

My, how great it must be to know someone else's beliefs, never having met them or conversed with them! And how easy it is to put a label on someone in an effort to discredit or marginalize them. Sad, really.

But hey, Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...
 
sorry i was just trying to figure out why an adult male gun owner would want to restrict.MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
THAT WAS THE ANSWER I CAME UP WITH..

THERE IS NO REASONABLE excuse to infringe MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS..

NONE....
THAT BEING SO, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE PERSON PROPOSING SUCH ACTION...


lets try it this way...we are going to suspend bill wynne;s freedom of speech.....

not everyones, not all bill's not all wynne's.....not all bill wynne's.....just those over 60......
because they have failed to advance....no use to society.

that would be ok...right...just a RESONABLE approach to someone wannting to violate the constitution as supported by the supreme court.

mike in co
Bill Wynne said:
Mike, You are out of line. We should be able to express our ideas on this subject without getting personal.
Click to expand...
 
jcwit

So man up, take a stance and bring the thread back on track.

Say something good.......meaningful.......relevant.....be the adult here.

al
 
Like most things in life, common sense gets you about 95% home. As I posted on another thread, the sad fact is that lacking any means of protection, a whack job with a single shot .22 and a pocket full of .22 shorts could have killed just as many.

Reasonable people can come up with resonable solutions to problems. The antis aren't reasonable and want nothing less than the complete disarming of the populace. Liberals are very good at the art of incrementalism....chip, chip, chip away a bit at a time until pretty soon there's nothing left. -Al

gunslesssafe.jpg
 
Very good Al. I think that if a previous post is true about the VA having to report all vets that have had counseling and anybody that goes along w/ disarming (if that is the intent) vets who have served their country, some in combat to protect our freedoms is disgraceful and cowardly.
 
vicvanb said:
No one here is talking about banning individual gun ownership (and please don't revert to the slippery slope argument which is pure nonsense). Clearly, reasonable restrictions on assault rifles and high capacity magazines do not infringe on second amendment rights. The fanatics want to make it into that but it just doesn't wash.

My, how great it must be to know someone else's beliefs, never having met them or conversed with them! And how easy it is to put a label on someone in an effort to discredit or marginalize them. Sad, really.

But hey, Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...


Of all the things written on this entire thread I find that line the most nonsensical. Sorry Vic but,,,,,,
Suppose we forfeit AR's and high capacity mags. (I own neither, why should I care?)
When the next mass killing happens (safe to assume there will be another unfortunately) what exactly do you believe will happen?
The anti gunners, government and emotional citizenry will just sit back and say "Well we tried and theres nothing else we can do"
Not likely Vic. We'll all be taking another ride down that slippery slope. More and larger sacrifices will be required of the law abiding in order to appease.
Just as your getting to your knees something else will crop up and once again off you go sliding downhill. Its been the rule of Govt, and society for at least 70 years now.
To deny the slippery slope exists just makes one a fool sittin on their a$$ with a dirty backside.
 
so when do we hear proposals to resolve the supposed issues ?
when do we hear things other than ban guns...?

where are the solid citizens ? where is someone that can compartmentalize the bits and peices and provide solutions to each part ??

i hear spineless people offering up thier constitutional rights...., but since i do not plan on giving mine up....

where are the other proposals ???

i'm listening ??( don't point fingers at me..i posted mine)

mike in co
 
“The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.- Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

While the majority of Society might hate her ideas for diametrically different reasons, Rand was right.
 
Well I'll just say this, and then I'm done with the people here that have no common sence, the NRA is fighting for your rights, support what they are telling you, you're wonderful Government is just picking one thing here one thing there till they are in control. If we didn't have the NRA the guns would have been gone long ago! Remember what Hitler did in 1934, He passed an arms bill. Say good night. And if your wondering why there are no more institutions for the insane, and the letting killers out of jail early, like the one here in webster New York that killed the two firemen, Fast and furious. Its all part of there plan. Pay Attention to what is going on around the country.



Joe Salt
 
When LaPierre said that the only way to solve the problem, which is admittedly not a huge cause of childhood deaths, of school shootings are armed guards in ALL schools he was called a whacko by the wonderful folks on the left. It turns out that the Obama children's (private) school has eleven (11) armed guards whether or not the President's kids are attending or not. Standard equipment there! It's good enough for the important people, but not for the kids of commoners I guess.

Then we have the genius who waves around a 30 rd AR magazine in DC on his tv show on Sunday which I NEVER watch. Turns out that possession of "high capacity" magazines, loaded, empty, gun or no gun is a felony in DC. The DC cops are "investigating", but since he's one of the elite members of the lamestream media he'll likely get a light slap on the wrist for his transgression.

BTW, Vic you sound like there are no laws or restrictions on gun ownership and that a few more laws would be just great because they'll solve the problem, until they're proven not to. We've had laws against murder since who knows when, they don't work, and currently there are something like 20k + laws concerning firearms. Another one or two or ten or a hundred won't make a lick of difference. What Feinstein, et al, want is a complete and total ban on ALL guns. After Obama appoints a couple more far left justices to SCOTUS they'll rule that the 2d Amendment only allows people the government specifically approves of to have guns. Police, military, private guards to wealthy liberals (actors, Soros, etc) and the like. Won't that work a treat.
 
Let me tell you another story I'd like to share, at the 1000 yard range I belong to, some fellows from the ballistics lab in Maryland came to visit the range, the year was 1983. They were there to find the right caliber rifle that would shoot a mile, that the snipers would be able comfortably shooting that was accurate at one mile. While down in the pitts with one of these fellows, I asked what they were going to shoot at a mile, "He said Arabs" So tell me they don't know years in advance whats going on!

Joe Salt
 
What happened in Ct is a tradegy, all of us can and will agree on that . I think! Tradegy's happens every day there is no stop to them it is just as much a part of the Human Experience as is breathing.

I feel complettly that the Liberals don't care one bit about tradegy, what they do care about is an opportunity. This terriable incident is providing that opportunity. That may be a hard way to look at this, but the Liberals themselves provide all of the proof anyone needs to see how they feel and think.

This year in the United States alone there will be 1,210,000 aportions. That is right at 3,315 a day. Every day! or 138 per hour. So in the 15 minutes of horror that happened in Newtown, CT on Friday November 14, 2012, just in roughly the same amount of time as those 20 children were murdered, there were 34 additional children murdered by abortion.

Yet were is the voice of those 34? Were is MSNBC? or ABC? howabout CBS? Where is the outrage for those 34?

There is no outrage, not now and probably not ever. You see its not about those 20 little children it's about the "Guns". The Left is doing what they always do when a tradegy like this happens. They are trying to punish all gun owners. You know the ones I mean? The ones who didn't do it.

Roland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top