Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
2 hours ago.
by slinky
rocker
#1

Daily breaking news and news the liberal media doesn't want you to know, won't report, or just daily news issues.

Americans for many years have had to rely on left leaning biased news reporting from liberal media such as NBC, ABC, and CBS and the New York Times. As most of these outlets struggle to remain on the air and in print, the new media is flourishing and people are hearing both sides of the issues. This forum will provide people with a place to discuss daily news issues of any kind or discuss articles not printed or aired by the liberal news outlets.

 
 

Member Comments

absolem

OWO...the wording would have to apply to the government as well if one considers the "intent" of the second amendment. the fear and need was to equalize the balance of power between the citizens and their elected government. i agree that common sense limits must be agreed upon but mostly, active enforcement with extremely harsh penalties must be implemented. harsh penalties up to and including threat of removal has to be strongly considered. when laws become merely suggestions, then the victims will contiue to increase along with the proliferation of the problem.

Posted 183 days ago.

I still have a feeling that the proof is in the wording . If you cant "bear" a firearm then you cant have it ! That should at least limit things a bit !

Posted 183 days ago.

Ah but Abby , the "slow and methodical approach " has to at least get started . If it never moves then what do we have . Dont get me wrong , I am a strong supporter of gun rights but there has to come a time when we all say , enough is enough !

Posted 183 days ago.

absolem

Moderation... O.K.

Posted 183 days ago.

absolem

OWO.....i hope you realize that i posted what i did to show that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting or other such lame limitations placed on a right that is guranteed. with that said..****mon sense and safe public interaction require certain concessions to be made. the reasons for the changes and adaptations of the amendment are evolving as generations become separated from the sting of "true" governmental tyranny. time is not the enemy of the socially slow acting poison that errodes freedom. for many instant gratification is paramount and to others the slow and methodical approach provides gratification.

Posted 183 days ago.

moderation

Don't be surprised when hil names liz as her vp pick.

Posted 183 days ago.

Shopsteward

Coal its the fallacy of the left to conflate the second amendment to unimportant things such as hunting to fool the weak minded

Posted 183 days ago.

bear arms

phrase of bear

1.

carry firearms............ By golly we maybe on to something here !

Posted 184 days ago.

If you cant bear them , then you cant have them !

Posted 184 days ago.

Shopsteward

Coal they clearly didnt care about deer hunting

Posted 184 days ago.

Oh you whacko republinutz may not like this !

Posted 184 days ago.

bear arms

phrase of bear

1.

carry firearms. By golly we maybe on to something here !

Posted 184 days ago.

I suppose one way would be in the wording "bear arms " If you cant bear(carry or heft) a weapon then you have no right to it !Hmmmmm.......

Posted 184 days ago.

So everyone in this country will have a battleship in their frontyard . Nope ! There has to be some common sense instilled somewhere in this !Its the right to keep and bear arms, not loadup with anti-tank missles in your garage !

Posted 184 days ago.

Shopsteward

There is a process to amend it, go that route if you can

Posted 184 days ago.

Shopsteward

The authorities have to make provisions regarding whats legal and necessary and whats not , simple as that !

This is the idiocy of the left, they trust the very Govt that our forfathers wished to protect us from. THE CONSTITUTION is not subject to "the authorities"

Posted 184 days ago.

Coaluser

You are right on all points abby and shop. I think the founding father had a vision. One night after they had all worked tirelessly for monthe to frame up the constitution, they had a "nostadamus-like vision and saw Mr hiLIARy and Mrs Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Sarah Brady and they all rushed in the next day to put the perfect wording in... They had been shown the devils working...

Posted 184 days ago.

When does commom sense come into the equation ? The second amendment gives one the right to keep and bear arms but it says nothing about what those arms are, they could have been talking about spears ! The authorities have to make provisions regarding whats legal and necessary and whats not , simple as that !

Posted 184 days ago.

absolem

to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."

nope...sure doesn't sound like the founding fathers had hunting on their minds at the inception of the 2nd amendment. in contrast, the citizenry has fallen short in the "They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression" ability as mentioned above. i did not receive this months allotment of TOW Missles...have you?

Posted 184 days ago.

absolem

as found on constitutioncenter dot org:

"This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire

Posted 184 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or