Previous 21 - 30 Next
Funny how every time there is one of these shootings the liberals start screaming; “take away those evil guns”, yet they never suggest that maybe we need to do more to root out these twisted freaks before they go berserk. That is typical liberal-think; never blame the criminal; it’s always society’s failure! It was the late Chuck Karwan who opened my eyes to the fact that AK-47s, M-16s, machine guns-weapons of war-are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is all about! It says a well-regulated militia (that word that the left has managed to demonize) is necessary to the security of a free state and we have the right to keep and bear these ARMS. It does not mention sporting or allude to sporting equipment in any way! The Second Amendment is...
In response to:

Assault Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction

R.L.2 Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 11:11 AM
Daniel, you are correct in everything you say, but unfortunately, like many gun owners, you are missing the main point here; it was the late Chuck Karwan who opened my eyes to the fact that AK-47s, M-16s, machine guns-weapons of war-are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is all about! It talks about a well-regulated militia (that word that the left has managed to demonize) and the right to keep and bear ARMS; it does not mention sporting equipment! It is not even primarily about self or home defense, but about we the people retaining the means to protect our freedom. As such it is not only saying that we are allowed to be armed, but that it plainly is our DUTY to be! It just stands to reason; if you partake of the benefits of a free...
Doug, you and O'Reilly both missed the main point here; it was the late Chuck Karwan who opened my eyes to the fact that AK-47s, M-16s, machine guns-weapons of war-are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is all about! It talks about a well-regulated militia (that word that the left has managed to demonize) and the right to keep and bear ARMS; it does not mention sporting equipment! It is not even primarily about self or home defense, but about we the people retaining the means to protect our freedom. As such it is not only saying that we are allowed to be armed, but that it plainly is our DUTY to be! It just stands to reason; if you partake of the benefits of a free society then you have an obligation to protect and defend it-no one is...
In response to:

Conservative: What’s in a Name?

R.L.2 Wrote: Jul 28, 2012 12:25 PM
What is the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative? I believe it is the matter of personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in it, liberals don't. Every movement they support in one way or another relieves someone of a duty or obligation; the responsibility to feed, clothe and house themselves, to educate and raise their children, even the basic duty of defending their own lives! It justifies their own shirking of responsibility.
In response to:

Obscurity: No Crueler Punishment!

R.L.2 Wrote: Jul 27, 2012 4:58 PM
Funny how the left's response is all about gun control, nothing about identiftying these hyenas before they can do harm.
The remark about "military" guns being solely for killing can be answered in the same over-simplified manner: there are some people who need killing. Let's debunk the ignorantly-held notion that the 2nd amendment is about the right to keep and bear sporting equipment. The founders fought a war of rebellion against a government that had become "abusive of those rights". And they warn us repeatedly that government is the most-to-be-feared enemy of freedom. "The right (AND DUTY!) of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed." Your bird gun or deer rifle are ONLY protected because they may be used as weapons! No one is designated to protect your freedom FOR you!
I have to disagree with one thing Ice-T said. If no one had guns then it would be the tyranny of the ones with the biggest muscles. They called Col. Colt's revolver The Equalizer because it made all men one size! An armed potential victim means that the perpetrator must put HIS life on the line; which suddenly makes the proposition a whole lot less attractive. The victims of these "gun-free zones" can only hope to run away or hide behind something until men WITH GUNS come to their rescue!
How insane is it to say that the way to protect ourselves from violent crime is to disarm? All that people in such as Aurora, Columbine etc. can do is try to cower behind cover until men with guns come to their rescue!
One tiny nit to pick; it only required a person be armed to have stopped this cowardly a--hole, he (or she) need not have been licensed!
In response to:

The Other Consequences of Fast and Furious

R.L.2 Wrote: Jul 15, 2012 11:26 AM
The hypocrisy of upping enforcement efforts against gun dealers when it was the ATFE that FORCED dealers to make illegal sales is unbelievable! This thinly-veiled attempt to justify more gun control is what we have to make our first concern. Another facet of this matter which begs explaining is this: AK-47s are readily available on the black market-the same place, as you point out, that the cartels get hand grenades etc. They can be bought for 50 to 100$ apiece, so why would the cartels spend a thousand dollars or more (not cheap, as you claim) to buy weapons here that then have to be transported to and sneaked across the border? This whole deal is even more fishy than has been revealed so far.
In response to:

Our Disgraceful President

R.L.2 Wrote: Jul 15, 2012 10:59 AM
He was brought up as a Muslim socialist; how would anybody expect him to advance American principles?
Previous 21 - 30 Next