Political Discussions

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

bugman — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:01:37 GMT

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

bugman — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:12:24 GMT

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

uber-liberal — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:28:43 GMT

hear, hear...

well reasoned, and well said.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

Mike Hignite — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:53:49 GMT

I'll give $0.02 to anyone running for state office who promises to vote no on every spending bill. I'll give $100 to anyone, who at the end of their term, actually did it.

We citizens need to stand up. Anyone who can read well enough to understand the instructions on a can of soup should correctly understand that the federal and state constitutions prohibit ANY law regarding a citizen's right to bear arms. Any law passed by congress is void on its face that goes against the constitution. Until our constitutions are amended, no law regarding the bearing of arms should be enforced. Period. Concealed carry laws, licensing laws, safety training laws, prohibiting guns in any public space including schools, roads, and government buildings are all null and void. They should not be enforced by police, procecutors, judges or juries.

It's a sad comment on the state of our citizenship that we've let it come to this. Politicians of all flavors have ignored the constitution because it is inconvenient to their desire for power. Bush should be tried for violating habeus corpus. An american citizen was declared "enemy combatant" held without bond, or trial or the right to confront his accusers. He had no access to an attorney. Bush did it because he was president. He abused his powerful office of trust. It doesn't matter whether or not Padilla was a terrorist. Under our constitution, he had a right to confront witnesses, and refute the charges. That's how it works. That's how it works even in war and the fear of terrorist attack. Roosevelt did the same thing to Japanese Americans. Nixon's quote, "it's not a crime when the president does it," sums up this approach.

If you are on a jury, read and understand your responsibilities. Even though the judge will never mention it, you are the last check against a runaway legislature, or misguided one. He will tell you that you are to judge the facts of the case, and that he will tell you what the law says. What he won't mention, is that you are to judge the law as well as the facts. [ see Fully-Informed Jury in a google search ] If you are on a case where someone is accused of robbing a bank at gun-point, and he is guilty as hell, convict him of bank robbery, but acquit him on any weapons charge. Possessing a firearm should never be illegal. Using a weapon can be robbery, battery, or assault, and if so convict him of that, but never on any crime or sentence based on mere possession of a firearm.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

crazycajun — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:02:52 GMT

who do YOU trust?

do you trust the man who carries a gun to protect himself and his family, or do you trust the man who carries a gun to rob people with?

do you trust the man who keeps a gun ready to protect his loved ones, or do you trust the man who wishes that his gun and his rights to own it, be confiscated?

do you trust the man who decides to be responsible for his familiy's safety, or do you trust the man who disarms you, promising that there are enough policemen on the job to keep you safe?

do you trust the politician who believes that it is your RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY to arm yourself for protection of your life, or do you trust the man who doesn't trust you to be able to make that decision?

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

crazycajun — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:20:50 GMT

so you are saying that i should go around in circles the OTHER WAY? being leftist is just going around in circles to the left.

the left has been in charge long enough.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

jmangan — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:03:45 GMT

If you go in the RIGHT direction, you will just keep going in the circle we've been going in for the last eight years. We know where that leads.

Time for a new direction my boy. Get used to it.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

crazycajun — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:17:48 GMT

i said i was ASKED to run for office.

i NEVER put my name in the hat to run. but if it is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, i'll consider it, and take the government by the hand and lead it in the RIGHT direction.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

jmangan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:55:42 GMT

May I offer my endorsement. Sorry, no money for the war chest.

I'm just puzzeld as to why someone so against government would want to be in it.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

crazycajun — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:06:02 GMT

i've been asked a couple of times....

still thinking about it... i'll let you know when the campaign warchest is full... till then, still thinking.

Re: GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

Michpatriot — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:54:47 GMT

Hello Mr. Cajun

If you were trying to take away freedoms, rights and money you wouldn't want those law abiding citizens armed either.

If the gubmint really wanted us to be safer they would forget about the stupid stuff and start issuing guns to all the law abiding folks.

Keep poking the leffties with the big truth stick, it's alot of fun to watch. Have you thought about running yet? Jenny will be blown away soon and we need some adult supervision in this state.

GUN CONTROL: a matter of trust

crazycajun — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:48:13 GMT

why doesn't the left TRUST the citizens?

why does the left try to convince people that not being armed will make you SAFER?

if being disarmed will make you safer, why is the murder rate highest where gun laws are strictest?

why is there never a cop around when you need one, but always one around when you don't?

i'm interested to hear the opinions of the leftists here, they provide so much humor to the day.