A Country founded by geniuses but run by idiots!! N/C

[Doc]

So true!!

‎1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

2. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

5. If, in our largest city, you can buy "two" 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

6. If an 80-year-old woman and 3 yr old child can be stripped searched by the TSA, but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

9. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes…, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

10. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

11. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TVs and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

12. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more safe according to the government,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

[knabe]

if you know anyone who doesn't see the irony in the logic above, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

I agree in spirit with alot of this but not all-I dont believe in big mag assault weapons being available-but I have a shotgun,hunting rifle,etc-and if I get time to pull one when you threaten me-I wont hesitate. Being stripped of the right to defend yourself of to posses a permitted handgun is plain cra^&**)_)p You oughta be thankfull that they are trying to weed the nuts and wackos out from having a weapon-YEA YEA-they can get em-but if only a fiew get tracked down because the gun is tracible-at least thats a start.  Being in the unfortunate posistion of occaisionally going to airports where there are an abudence of RUGBEETERS (yes I am a prejudiced redneck) I have seen one instance where the entire flight coming in from the dunes somewhere;with women wearing what looked like the feedbags my grandfather put over the muzzels of the plow horses: were held for 3 hours of searches as a general practice,before coming through to customs-I dont buy the sensationalist BS about the 80 year old lady-and run into a couple security people for Dulles International at the store up the road 3-4 times a week.A younger brother works there and Ive heard what transpires if any AAARAABB even looks remotely suspicious. So:an isolated incident occurred when a security situation arose-even if there was a glitch in detection..What if THEY HAD AN UNDERWEAR BOMB? .In short-SECURITY IS certainly just as important to the people who face it every day-as to the John Wayne wannabes and thier pea shooters crying about thier lack of freedom.When was the last time the raging terrorists of the desert came through your town in Tennesse?-and when was the last time you counted your blessings for being lucky enough to live in this country-even with its faults IMAGINARY or otherwise? Im real sick of the cry baby routine about the idiots in the govt.-the majority of which were voted for BY YOU-the citizens-and that includes me:Knabe put it succintly-and covered all the bases-these are just a couple.of mine. O0

 

[mark tenenbaum]

if you know anyone who doesn't see the irony in the logic above, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots./// I was gonna add inhabited by idots-but thats kind of a blaket statement O0

 

[Doc]

if you know anyone who doesn't see the irony in the logic above, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

That's what I'm saying. Wasn't trying to make a big political statement, just reposting something that I found on facebook and thought was pretty funny, but true in a roundabout way.

 

[Limiman12]

Size of sodas and size of magazines is the same thing......  If I can have two tens why can't I have a twenty?    If the DBS is getting armored vehicles, for domestic use, why can't I have twent rounds?    If a citizen of occupied IRAQ is allowed by the constitution that we helped right to have FULLY AUTOMATIC rifles why can't I have a semi auto?    If we are giving tanks and f-16 to people that hate America, why can't people that love America  have a weapon.    Of the second Ammendment does not protect modern rifles, why does the first protect modern communication?    I USED to think modern rifles were not needed, then we had two calves killed by coyotes, and by god I have one ordered and if it takes me a whole magazine to hit em, I want to have it!

 

[KSanburg]

Well I know before I write this that I will get slammed but here it goes anyway. The whole gun control thing is not about protecting other Americans it is about controlling the citizens and protecting the government. The government does not want you to have guns period! They start by telling us that they want to take our magazines and semi autos, next it will be any firearm capable of firing more than 3 rounds in less than 30 seconds and eventually they will want everything from 22's to 50 cal rifles and everything in between. They will let you have a muzzle loader because that is what the founding fathers wrote about in the 2nd amendment, great protect your home and family from a criminal that doesn't give a rats A$$ about laws with a muzzle loader. Folks they are afraid of us if we are armed. So now I have said it and I know there are people that are going to think I am a crack pot but you need to wake up and smell the coffee. They will not ever stop until they have any type of a weapon that scares them regardless of who's hands it is in.

 

[comercialfarmer]

Tend to agree Mtnman.  The Constitution was not written about availability of hunting rifles and just individual protection from criminals (though that is part of it).

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"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."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

If the ATF is trying so hard to track down guns, why did they let over 2000 rifles leave in the hands of criminals?    Why is Eric Holder the US Attorney General in contempt of Congress? 

I was on the border for a few weeks in 2010 or 11 (I can't remember now), and one of the DEA agents stopped 3 cars thinking they were transporting narcotics into the US from Mexico.  Instead, the cars where full of hundred's of rifles and guns that had been transported back into the US.  Since DEA doesn't deal with weapons charges on a large scale situation, she contacted her superior to make sure that all was carried out as necessary so technicalities were not an issue.  He contacted ATF.  ATF head office called back and said let them go.  DEA was in disbelief but ATF was adamant and so the cars were released after several minutes of arguing. 

Glad the ATF took the chance to get so many guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.  If we enforced the laws we have currently, we wouldn't need new ones. 

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Now its my turn to get slammed-people in US can have a variety of weapons-and while they are at it-shouild ID themselves as the non-cirminals that they would ptotect themselves against-If you had your choice would you allow these people to continue the crazy killing or not? Its a matter of 30 round magazines etc.not completely losing the right to bear arms. It would make more sense to me to lobby for our vets to guard our schools-and if someone attempts anything of a forcible nature-MOW them down. You might sacrifice a wanna be who pushed the envelope tpo far-but I think in the long run tragedy somewhere would be averted,and the young people out of work who served our country yatta yatta,could have a sense of purpose,and maybe later get into a higher financial strata.As far as an armed militia and potential revolt in this country-thats hogwash-the 60s and 70s were MUCH closer to that sort of thing than today,and I really dont think thats an issue with "Nut Control". O0

 

[Gargan]

If some of your government officials are trying to make it illegal for retired military person to own a firearm because they have been exposed to to much mental anguish in their lifetime, you mite live in a country founded by geniuses and now ran by idiots!!

"At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) opposed an amendment to her Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would allow military veterans to continue to buy the firearms that would be banned. Feinstein says a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/08/feinstein_veterans_may_have_ptsd_and_should_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

 

[KSanburg]

What I am saying is that people kill people not magazines not guns. I believe in 1972 in Israel they had a a bunch of school/mass shootings and they don't have this problem anymore. They made it mandatory that the teacher go through training and then carry their weapon while teaching. Now it is a known fact that the armed citizen can end the threat, like the mall shooting in Texas, oh ya the media never reported on that, it would ruin there campaign on gun control.

It's a sad day that we are having this discussion at all! I know I don't have all of the answers, if I did I wouldn't be broke!

 

[mark tenenbaum]

When all is said and done Diane Fienstiens deal is dead in the water-its probably gonna come down to enforcing and tightening who can buy a weapon-which makes sense in the short run-the rest of the magazine issues (no pun intended) wont get anywhere and like all bills that get passed or fail-the opposing sides will either take credit for thier victory or not. Im about keeping maggots like that mommas boy creep who killed those children from access to assault rifles-even though in that case they started out as mommas guns-a veritible BATES MOTEL. I also strongly agree with armed protective measures to protect those who either cant protect themselves or otherwise-So Im kinda middle of the road-If some creep even makes the wrong motion at a school,security point etc-drop him right there;once again,the voice of a liberal rings strong  (lol) O0

 

[Doc]

Now its my turn to get slammed-people in US can have a variety of weapons-and while they are at it-shouild ID themselves as the non-cirminals that they would ptotect themselves against-If you had your choice would you allow these people to continue the crazy killing or not? l". O0

So are you saying that everyone that has a gun should register it with the government ?

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Now its my turn to get slammed-people in US can have a variety of weapons-and while they are at it-shouild ID themselves as the non-cirminals that they would ptotect themselves against-If you had your choice would you allow these people to continue the crazy killing or not? l". O0

So are you saying that everyone that has a gun should register it with the government ?/// No-that aint gonna happen-and who dont know that/ They are talking about future transfer and sales-to have a little control over the fruitcakes-somes better than none. The rest of the deal doesnt look like it will pass-and theres a terrorist around every corner-no place is safe-even up in steam hollar where I get a powerfull form of apple juice.However-it looks like Colorado just signed a comprehensive gun control deal (pop) O0

 

[comercialfarmer]

comprehensive gun control deal (pop) O0

Define comprehensive when speaking of gun control...

 

[knabe]

for me, there is no such thing as comprehensive anything.

it is merely a stop on the path to a total ban of the other side's position.

in this case, liberals want a complete ban on guns.

you can bet they are hoping scalia dies so they can replace him with a gun control nut.

they know they don't have the votes either in congress or the public, but they do with the president and potentially with the court.

you can bet the liberals in congress will change their vote to ban them as soon as the public opinion poll hits 50.000000000000000001.

 

[comercialfarmer]

I agree knabe, and then you have a problem. 

Once a list of gun owners is made, it isn't long until it is published or used against them.  That is what further registration is about. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

You know anything about Canada's attempt at this and what their success rate was and the cost?  You know why they stopped the long gun registry? 
Read about that for a minute. 

Show me where restriction on magazines has curbed violence.    Here is what the last ban did for us: nothing. 
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all


Here is an interesting number.  Decreasing the number of civilians with a right to carry will be harmful. 
"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started." 

You won't be able to regulate away evil.  You can't.  But you can allow citizens to protect themselves. 

You realize the kid that killed everyone at the grade school in CT went to the high school first.  But since there were armed officers there performing an exercise, he went to the grade school.  These guys look for soft targets and that is what the left gives them more of.  Doesn't make sense. 

Mark T, you mentioned airport security.  The best thing that occurred regarding security of the airlines is placing armed Federal Marshals on many flights and they are unknown.  That is security.  That is a deterrent. 


Not saying that any in office currently want something bad to happen to America.  But many are just ill informed of logic and history. 

 

[comercialfarmer]

Forgot.....

If all of the legislation is so grand, explain to me why Chicago with some of the toughest gun control laws in the US is one of the most violent cities? 

Is has one of the highest murder rater and highest murder rater with guns. 

 

[mark tenenbaum]

I agree knabe, and then you have a problem.   

Once a list of gun owners is made, it isn't long until it is published or used against them.  That is what further registration is about. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

You know anything about Canada's attempt at this and what their success rate was and the cost?  You know why they stopped the long gun registry?   
Read about that for a minute. 

Show me where restriction on magazines has curbed violence.     Here is what the last ban did for us: nothing.   
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all


Here is an interesting number.  Decreasing the number of civilians with a right to carry will be harmful.   
"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started." 

You won't be able to regulate away evil.  You can't.  But you can allow citizens to protect themselves. 

You realize the kid that killed everyone at the grade school in CT went to the high school first.  But since there were armed officers there performing an exercise, he went to the grade school.  These guys look for soft targets and that is what the left gives them more of.  Doesn't make sense. 

Mark T, you mentioned airport security.  The best thing that occurred regarding security of the airlines is placing armed Federal Marshals on many flights and they are unknown.  That is security.  That is a deterrent. 


Not saying that any in office currently want something bad to happen to America.  But many are just ill informed of logic and history.  /// I agree with everything you posted-especially armed security where it counts:and that is an issue called for by both sides. When pushing a bill-the liberals propose 100% expecting to get 10% and the right wingers do the same thing:I dont think either side is very far apart in realizing that there is no quick fix,with most likely registration-ID of new owners being one of the few portions of the whole deal that sticks-and I do not think this is May Day in Russia bringing totalitarion control over the US Citizens or other such sensationalist nonsense O0

 

[mark tenenbaum]

comprehensive gun control deal (pop) O0

Define comprehensive when speaking of gun control... // A bill that incorporates more than 1 of the issues everyone is arguing about-like: Registering new gun purchases,and outlawing big clips or whatever you want to call them O0