left-wing whiners advocate abrogation of constitutional rights - beware

[KRU1996]

beware of tear drenched trojan horses sent through your gates by a bunch of us citizens who seem to believe that a tragedy they suffered means that the rest of us who did not lose friends lovers family at the hands of a gunwielding womanhating sociopaths in 2 states should be stripped of our constitutional right to own a gun...
mind you there are already sufficient rules and regulations at the state and local level to police this and the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms as well as the FBI and Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Acts have extensive powers to intervene in any situation at the federal regional state and local level should any situation be branded as being of "special interest due to potential heightened terrorist involvement."
now the thinking of the left-wing constitutionbashers is along the lines of if one of them gets injured on a beach then all eaches should be shut down and paved over in concrete and thick layers of styrofoam to prevent anyone else in the future from an injury...
of course these same left-wing whiners attack anyone who disagrees with them as being out of touch with reality and being insensitive...but what about protecting the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - is that now a problem not up for debate?

Homosexuals should be especially wary and if they have any sense of self-preservation might actually join the Human Rights Campaign and the NAACP and LULAC and the National Rifle Association and learn to shoot and care for a weapon and get a concealed weapons permit so that when that homophobic comes at you you will be ready to defend yourself/ stand your ground. And armed gay man is a protected gay man as is an armed lesbian.

All American members of KRU go to the shooting range regularly.

 

[mikeyank]

I find the thought of KRU as being a gun owner rather disturbing.

 

[Kylebrand]

Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world,
but has yet to solve one.

 

[Kylebrand]

Forgot to attribute the above quote to Dr. Maya Angelou.
Here's a story. Traveling to FL to see friends, my buddy and I had to pee so we stopped at a convenience store for gas, water and restroom - in Georgia. Mistake. Partner gassed up while I went inside to pee and pay. When my feet hit the pavement outside the door a man with a gun approached me saying "You all ain't no homos are ya?" GA has open carry - anywhere, unless a sign is posted on door. I had planned on pretending I didn't hear him, so I kept walking. He yelled "Hey, you, Homo, You better answer me or we'll follow you until you do" (2 buddies sitting in pick-up) It was then I turned and said "Are you speaking to me?" He mumbled something derogatory and I lied,to difuse the situation; "Sir, my brother and I are on our way to FL to bury our mother." I take away from this, Stay Out Of Georgia. Guns everywhere. It's a 10 hour detour for me, but it's worth it to stay alive. My partner peed into two empty cups. We haven't come as far as we thought.
No KRU, I have killed far too many people in war. I choose to end that part of my life. No more guns. They kill. You may feel lost and alone, but God knows precisely where you are, and he has a good plan for your future.

 

[KellyG]

I did not expect right wing paranoia from you. Read the article to which you are referring. "A well armed militia" is not your frat nor is it any yahoo who wants to own an assault rifle. Responsible gun ownership is the key. As to the story above, in my profession I have met tons of people that I would never want to see a gun in their hands

 

[Kylebrand]

Thanks for your kind words, KellyG. I will try to find a copy of the "Militia book" after I finish reading "Surviving PTSD".

 

[KellyG]

I did not mean you Kylebrand I met the Kru Sorry if i was mistaken

 

[juanjo]

I own firearm and grew up around firearms. The current obsession of certain individuals with the right to run around armed to the teeth in case they might possibly run into a dictator seeking to throw them into a concentration camp or some homicidal maniac seeking to rape and rob them is absurd. In the 60 years of my life I have never had to fire a weapon in defense of my life as a civilian. But I have been in situation like the one related by Kylebrand above where some person, fortunately unarmed decided that they were offended to share the same country with me.

As for Georgia which allows any damn fool to walk around armed, yesterday two ammosexuals decided to go to the Waffle House and cause a disturbance while armed. The off duty police officer who was working there as security was killed by these two penis substitute carrying mouth breathers after the spouted racial insults at them when he told them to leave.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2014/05/georgia_cop_shot_in_back_kille.html

 

[Ambivalent]

i find the thought of kru as being a gun owner rather disturbing.

*****************************

Yup.

"A" ;-))))

 

[Ambivalent]

Thanks, KRU ~

For that totally hilarious bit of "click-bait" ;-) However, if I may say so, your polemic has probably done more for your political opposition, here: than you ever realized or anticipated.

The answer to this problem is SIMPLE.

#1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was kept under strict limits for over a century - in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the United States v. Miller, that: the federal government AND the states can limit any weapon types not having "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

#2) The gargantuan, and ever-BALLOONING import, of the meaning of the Second Amendment - to the point that now, in about 20 states, you can carry a concealed handgun into CHURCH with you - is an historical novelty. Anyone who can READ - unlike Mr. Justice Scalia, apparently - can tell that this is a cancerous neologism, quite foreign to what the founders of the American nation, intended.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/guns-everywhere.html

#3) I grew up on a farm. My Dad had a shotgun, and a couple of rifles - which were necessary to keep down pests. (Skunks, mostly.) My favourite step-nephew (whom I love) is an avid hunter - he hunts deer, elk, moose, and bear. Guns are needed for these purposes.

#4) HANDGUNS, and semi- or automatic weapons of ALL sorts, are signally NOT NEEDED to kill skunks or magpies; or to hunt deer, moose, or elk. These are weapons which are designed specifically for killing people on the BATTLEFIELD - and there is no reason for people in civilian life to want them, need them, or HAVE them.

#5) The National Rifle Association - which, incidentally, derives most of its revenue from firearms manufacturers - contends that the more firearms are in civilian hands, the better off, all of us, will be. (Including, if teachers in elementary schools, are armed with handguns.) This (to my simple Canadian brain, anyway) seems like idiocy. The United States of America has something like 44 million registered gun owners - - - it also has the highest rate of gun violence and fatality in the developed world - - - putting it pretty much on a par with nations like. . . Angola.

#6) The NRA reasons that, "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE do." And that's quite true, as far as it goes. However, it can't be denied that, IF you are a mentally ill or homicidal maniac - you can kill a LOT more people with a Bushmaster AR17, or AR15, than you could with a KNIFE, a broken bottle, or a STICK. (Adam Lanza used the Bushmaster AR-15 to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook, just a Christmas or two, ago ~ as verified by the Connecticut State Police.)

#7) So, come on - - - WHAT the F***, America??? The United States is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. It is a font of learning, and research, and civilization. Americans, famously, give more generously to overseas charities, on a per capita basis - than the people of ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH. So. . . why the hell IS IT that Americans REFUSE to protect their young people, based on a corrupted interpretation of an 18th-century piece of PARCHMENT???

I dunno. As a simple-minded Canadian, I totally do not get this, at all. In Canada, and Australia, and the U.K. - we ALL have much more restrictive gun laws and regulations than anything that exists in the U.S.A. - but I don't think we're slaves? I don't think we're running around in shackles? And what's up, America? The BRITISH aren't coming to get you, anymore. . . . and if Vladimir Putin is going to come get you, a few Bushmasters aren't going to save you - you need STEALTH-FIGHTERS, and TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. (And, as it happens, you've got them ;-)

Why do I even care about this??? Well - three reasons.
1.) I love America, and think it's a great country, and want to see it succeed. It is really disheartening to know that, in the next year or two, deaths because of firearms homicides and suicides will SURPASS deaths from traffic-accidents as the leading cause of preventable, premature death, in the U.S.A.
2.) A lot of my best friends are Americans! (Not just saying, it is true.)
3.) My BOYFRIEND is American, and I'd like to keep him HEALTHY, till he can come up here and we can take care of each other!

Yes, guns are necessary in a free society. But. . . if we ALL have to take (and PASS) a test, to get a driver's licence. . . is it too much to ask that we should all have to take (and PASS) a test, to own a firearm??? And, is it a cruel or arbitrary thing, to restrict the use of concealed handguns, or military assault-rifles, in the civilian population??? Or to prevent the mentally ill, or those with a criminal record, from owning such weapons???

Would imposing such TERRIBLY HARSH prohibitions, and regulations, risk Sir Guy Carleton's (who, incidentally, had freed the slaves who'd fled to Canada, much against the vociferous objections of General George Washington) rising from the grave, wraith-like, to threaten U.S. sovereignty, again?

I rather think, not. Of course, dear KRU will think otherwise, but you're barking MAD, dear KRU, and so you get a pass, from me ;-)

I think it is time for the U.S.A. to grow up, on this matter. And for DECENT Americans - who are, of course, the VAST majority - to get up on their HIND LEGS and STAND UP to the NRA, and the gun-manufacturers, and say, "OK, enough is enough." No solution to this immense problem is SIMPLE, but. . . . steps can be taken to ensure that fewer people are hurt and killed, each year - and isn't that a worthwhile place to begin??? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/10/a-few-simple-ideas-about-gun-control.html

I dunno. Just a few simple thoughts, from your simple Canadian friend.

"A" XOXOXOXOXOXO

 

[another1]

until 6 years ago, it was thought the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a collective right. the states reserved to themselves the right of self-defense. a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state is the opening words. the federal government could prohibit interstate commerce, but the states could regulate how to keep devices out of the hands of individuals who should not keep and bear arms.
now it's different. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a personal right. since the states are under equal protection and due process of law clause of article fourteen, state regulation becomes difficult. personal right and all.
if you try to keep devices out of the hands of the violent, someone says they are coming to takeaway me guns. there is the person who would kill to exercise his right to keep and bear arms. how do I exercise my right to life? call the militia, this is a time of public danger!
I am no hater of hunters and sportsmen. prefer targets. non-living! I am just naturally scare of a man with gun who wants to know if I feel safe? if yes, does he correct my feelings? if no, does he confirm my feeling?

 

[betudidntknow]

until 6 years ago, it was thought the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a collective right. the states reserved to themselves the right of self-defense. a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state is the opening words. the federal government could prohibit interstate commerce, but the states could regulate how to keep devices out of the hands of individuals who should not keep and bear arms.
now it's different. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a personal right. since the states are under equal protection and due process of law clause of article fourteen, state regulation becomes difficult. personal right and all.
if you try to keep devices out of the hands of the violent, someone says they are coming to takeaway me guns. there is the person who would kill to exercise his right to keep and bear arms. how do I exercise my right to life? call the militia, this is a time of public danger!
I am no hater of hunters and sportsmen. prefer targets. non-living! I am just naturally scare of a man with gun who wants to know if I feel safe? if yes, does he correct my feelings? if no, does he confirm my feeling?

Well stated another1.

 

[Kylebrand]

AMBIVALENT; Thank-you, from a simple-minded American, south of your border. Run for something. You've got my vote.

 

[Kylebrand]

KELLYG; no offense taken, I also was mistaken, bro

 

[IggyPop]

I am wondering if a Do Not Feed the Trolls posting is appropriate here as the OP states the opinion but there is no follow-up.

However, I'll bite:

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.

The above words are what the Second US Constitutional Amendment reads. There is the pesky word regulated in it. I guess people in favor of machine guns like to ignore this. Oh, machine guns like uzis are banned.

I own handguns and have fired off a few in my life. I have no problem with concealed weapons as I have carried them with me in rather tough neighborhoods. Again, no one knew I was packing and I didn't advertise it.

The Democrats are lacking a spine as they will never support ANY gun control measure. They fear the mighty NRA. This is a fact as we even repealed the semi-automatic rifle ban along with magazine cartridge limits. So next time you hear someone whine they are losing their beloved gun rights, ask them to name one bill that has passed Congress recently that takes one gun away from them.

Meanwhile, wait for the next mass shooting so we can hear all the pundits ask what needs to be done to stop this. The answer is nothing. Nothing will be done.

 

[joninliverton]

*****************************

Yup.

"A" ;-))))

When I read a Kru thread on this side of the forum, I know it's going to stir up things. We've had many discussions about gun law in the USA and mostly this in the aftermath of a mass shooting, which there have been many my years on this forum. It is sad to say, but I think that it is too late for any gun law restricting their use to sports, hunting, etc is now too late. There are far too many bad weapons such as Ambi mentioned, on the streets and I doubt whether they would be handed in, even in the event of an amnesty. So in this case America has reaped what it has sown: just as the UK has reaped what it has sown regarding immigration. Sadly there is not going back.

Going back to KRU - Well thinking of him being in an alleged fraternity in some college somewhere is worrying. And though not religiously motivated, the word Waco comes to mind.