Cant believe it!

[MFP4073]

So I'm on this gun poll kick right now... looking around the web for polls to vote in. I decide to pay a visit to our old friends the Brady Campaign website in hopes there was a poll there we could get our votes in on. Of course there is no such luck because they are afraid of what the results would be.

(Soap Box)

Any way... I could not believe that on their home page they have a gif of a cartoon judge sitting in his chair with a parchment document in his right hand that says The Second Amendment. He takes a red pen and proceeds to cross out the words on the page. How anti American can you get?

Lets just have our judges redline anything we don't like in our country's sacred documents. What ASSES!

Its that kind of disrespect for our rights (not just gun rights) that is ruining this country!

"No your kids can not say the pledge of allegiance to the flag of our country in school and Barrak Osama should not be required to hold his hand to his heart when the National Anthem is recited. But we sure as hell should be able to edit and deface any document created by the founders of our country that guarantees our freedoms and rights."

What kind of message does that send?

It makes me sick (little puking icon)

Thanks for reading.

(off soap box)

 

[z0mbi]

You ask me, that document IS our country. Like it, or leave it. No country can be all things to all people. If you disagree with the foundation our country is built on, you should seek shelter elsewhere.

 

[Garys]

The ability to have stupid cartoons in the newspaper, and most of them are not only annoying, but not funny, is one of the fundamentals protected in the Constitution. It's what separates us from other countries that don't allow that type of expression. It's what allows morons who say "Bush is stealing our rights" to say "Bush is stealing our rights" and not go to jail. Or worse.

The right to protest decisions by our government and make fun of our politicians is what the First Amendment is all about. What the liberals don't understand is that the First Amendment is protected by the Second.

Well, it's the least of the things that they don't understand. They also don't understand that "The People" means the same thing in First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments means the same thing that it does in the Second. That is, the right to free speech is an individual right, as is the right to bear arms.

 

[MFP4073]

I agree Gary- they absolutely have the right to print, say, write what ever they want. It's just the disrespect it shows for those very freedoms that are protected by our constitution. It bugs me a little bit.

 

[pipmaster1971]

I know what you're saying, but I think it's just a stupid jibe at us gun owners. They are trying to say that we are ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of the 2A ('cos we're all stupid and don't know that the 2A means the National Guard don't you know ). Dumb joke, but to be fair I don't think they're trying to be offensive towards the Constitution.

 

[fubar]

Every time someone defends - rightly - the right to free speech with stupidity ... I wait for someone to point out that although they have that right it does not excuse them from sometimes being actual bad or worthless Americans.

 

[hminsky]

There was a great quote from someone on arfcom. "The constitution doesn't protect us, we protect the constitution".

The constitution is an agreement that we all live by, not a natural law. If we believe it needs to be interpreted in a particular way, we have to stand up and make our case in a convincing way, not sit around waiting for someone else to decide what it means.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Pakistan is doing an excellent job of supplying the world with an example of what you end up with if a country's laws and constitution can be suspended when those in power consider them inconvenient.

 

[z0mbi]

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

In 1928, Germany established gun control.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.
From 1975 to1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

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

 

[drgrant]

Dumb joke, but to be fair I don't think they're trying to be offensive towards the Constitution.

We're talking about anti gun groups here, Pip.... the very
EXISTENCE of these groups are offensive towards the constitution,
all by themselves. IMO their activities border on treason and
sedition, if you ask me.

-Mike

 

[MetalgodZ]

Wow...That cartoon is pretty ridiculous. I'm sadly not amazed, though, as the social libs who push gun control so hard are no less corrupt or self-serving than the "conservatives" who are taking our rights in other areas.

[...]It's what allows morons who say "Bush is stealing our rights" to say "Bush is stealing our rights" and not go to jail. Or worse.

The right to protest decisions by our government and make fun of our politicians is what the First Amendment is all about. What the liberals don't understand is that the First Amendment is protected by the Second.

Well, it's the least of the things that they don't understand. They also don't understand that "The People" means the same thing in First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments means the same thing that it does in the Second. That is, the right to free speech is an individual right, as is the right to bear arms.

Oh boy...Where to begin. Rant mode on, I guess...

Given what appears to be a pretty strong "Republican good, Democrat bad" divide in general here, I'd probably fall more into the "left" category, although I usually hate both options.

Your statement that the 1st Amendment is protected by the Second is perfectly correct, as is the statement that the rights laid out by the Bill of Rights are individual, not collective, rights.

On the other hand, your assertion that people saying that "Bush is stealing our rights" are morons is only partially true - Bush isn't stealing our rights on his own, he's doing it with the help and approval of a large number of our elected representatives on both sides of your defined left/right aisle.

ALL of our rights need to be protected, for ALL people, except in cases where MOST of our rights need to be protected for those CONVICTED of a crime. All of our rights need to be protected for those suspected of a crime. This needs to be true in all cases, or you end up <i>morally</i> no better than:
- Massachusetts, which assumes all men involved in a divorce to be worthy of an automatic restraining order (despite no crime committed) which ends up barring them from owning a handgun ever again
- the UK, which restricts both their citizens ability to lawfully protect themselves, and the ability to speak freely and the right to a trial when accused of a crime (Google "ASBO" )
- Afghanistan under the Taliban, where every aspect of life up to and including the right to play music was restricted

It's not a right wing / left wing problem, it's a politician problem where one side wants to restrict us to the benefit of their particular religion, and the other side wants to restrict us where it doesn't benefit all corners of society including those who refuse to work or live by our rules. Both sides want to restrict us wherever it's convenient for their corporate interests and their own wallet, and wherever they can use fear of one kind or another to increase firstly their own party's power and secondly the power of what's effectively become the "ruling class." As such, it's a problem with the power being no longer derived from the People but taken from the People.

The most expedient remedy is becoming more and more ineffective as our candidates become worse, and the most effective remedy is illegal.

 

[MFP4073]

- Massachusetts, which assumes all men involved in a divorce to be worthy of an automatic restraining order (despite no crime committed) which ends up barring them from owning a handgun ever again

Not to side track the thread but is that really true? MA issues automatic restraining orders for divorces?

 

[z0mbi]

Not to side track the thread but is that really true? MA issues an automatic restraining orders for divorces?

I'd like to know if this is true, too. I'm going through a very peaceful no fault, no contest divorce. My wife and I are still on speaking terms, we are still good friends and hang out together every now and then. I'm going for my LTC right now, and I'd like to be sure that nothing is going to screw that up for me.

 

[Chris]

No it isn't an automatic, but most lawyers recommend it and when applied for are usually approved.

Anyone can take out a 209A against you. And it is a very rare case that it isn't approved initially. As soon as it is served, you must hand over everything.

A VERY vicious way to annoy a gun owner to say the least.

 

[drgrant]

I'd like to know if this is true, too. I'm going through a very peaceful no fault, no contest divorce. My wife and I are still on speaking terms, we are still good friends and hang out together every now and then. I'm going for my LTC right now, and I'd like to be sure that nothing is going to screw that up for me.

If you're getting a 209A you'll know about it, it's definitely not
subtle. It sounds like in your case it is not likely to be an
issue if you're one of the lucky ones where there isn't a lot of
controversy.

-Mike

 

[MetalgodZ]

Not to side track the thread but is that really true? MA issues automatic restraining orders for divorces?

What Chris said.

It's not technically automatic, but it is effectively. I know of two people now whose former spouses were asked "Has he ever hit you or yelled at you, or do you think you may feel threatened at some point in the future?" If the answer is yes, they'll fill out the paperwork and file it for you.

Add to that the profiteering and general BS going on with that in MA, it's no wonder the suicide rate is EXTREMELY high for males going through a divorce in MA. [sad2]

 

[drgrant]

Not to side track the thread but is that really true? MA issues automatic restraining orders for divorces?

No. It generally only happens if the woman is pissed and hires a
"please cut his jugular" style divorce lawyer. The problem with
209As is that they're generally rubber stamped and hard to get
rid of; judges could care less if the woman uses feeble excuses or
even perjures herself in terms of requesting one. They just don't
care. In MA a male is guilty until proven innocent WRT a 209A.
While many ROs are vacated because of dubious assertions by the
applicant, there is never any punishment against the applicant
for inventing false charges, etc.

-Mike