ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I would like to correct the statement, "that right is given to us in the 2 ammendment", which is a bit inaccurate. The Rights spelled out in the Constitution are inalienable rights, meaning they exist no matter what any Constitution, government, or other person says. They are not Government's to grant and they are not Government's to take away. If you prove yourself unfit to uphold the responsibilities that come with those rights then others will exercise their right to protect themselves and deprive you of those rights if you misuse them.

peace | 11/21/08

There is too much restriction on what type of weapons can be bought. The people need the capability to retake their government if the time comes. Right now the US military would slaughter any American uprising. The founding fathers made the second amendment to keep people armed in case of a repressive government. I personally believe that automatic weapons should be legal, with safeguards for those who want to purchase them of course. Some military weapons should also be legal. Again people its not guns that kill people, its people that kill people. Our culture and income disparity lead to gun violence, not guns themself. I hated Clinton for the assault weapons ban. AND WTF IS WITH OBAMA'S APPLICATION THAT ASKS IF YOUR A GUN OWNER OR NOT? I am a gun owner, 8 of them actually and I could be categorized as far left. Who cares if your a gun owner if there legal. That should be none of their business.

ReVoluTionNow! | 11/21/08

they're

ReVoluTionNow! | 11/21/08

What's with the Chavez pic? Mr Chavez is a dictator, and they usually end up slaughtering their own people by the droves. The US military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, is made up of the people and knows it shouldn't obey orders if they're wrong or unlawful. The Revolution will likely be led by the military to remove the corrupt politicians who give unlawful orders or are traitors to the Constitution. There might be civil war within the military to settle that, and if the traitors to the Constitution won out then it would be up to the population to restore it. Simple numbers are on our side if the military fails its duty, and then the 2nd Amendment comes into play: we have a right to revolt and replace our gov't leaders if it comes down to it.

peace | 11/21/08

Well, perhaps if you did some independent research about Hugo Chavez you would find out differently. Let me guess...Democrat Clinton lover? You obviously do not have the slightest idea about REAL American foreign policy history. Hugo Chavez was DEMOCRATICALLY elected after his country was ruled by the elite for well over a century. In 2002 the United States backed a military Coup against Chavez in which he was taken out of power and put into a prison in Caracas. The next day when the people awoke to see a new right wing military regime, they took to the streets, almost one million people marched to the prison he was being held at and busted him out. A dictator? Do you have any idea about the unspeakable horrors that have occured in Latin America at the hands of the US? Let me give you a little insight. Jacobo Arbenz was a democratically elected socialist president of Guatamala in 1953. When he started taking land from UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, a US company, The CIA backed death squads to go in and murder Arbenz and install a military junta that killed 20,000 people. In 1968, Salvador Allende was democratically elected and when he started instituting land reform, The CIA supported a Military Coup in which Augusto Pinochet came to power and did things that makes 1984 look like a childrens novel including taking known Socialists into an airplane, cutting open their stomaches and throwing them out at 20,000 feet. He hearded up people into stadiums and had an assembly line of torture and death. The US did nothing to stop this and could not be happier about what was going on. In Niceragua, Sandanista leader Daniel Ortega was democratically elected to the presidency after 50 years of repression by a US backed dictator, SOMOZA, than the CIA backed the right wing CONTRAS in which 50,000 people died as a result of the ensuing civil war. Hugo Chavez represents a continent, that for the first time in 100 years is able to determine its own destiny rather than the interests of Washington DC. Hugo Chavez puts the peoples constitutional rights on the back of milk cartons. Watch the film, WAR ON DEMOCRACY, BY JOHN PILGER and you will see what is really going on in Caracas. You and those like you have been brainwashed by the American media and it is a damn shame that you would dare have the name peace and insult a great leader like Hugo Chavez.

ReVoluTionNow! | 11/22/08

The second tale of death happened in CHILE.

ReVoluTionNow! | 11/22/08

Cuba? Think Castro is so bad? You know how he got into power? Because of Batista, the dictator who killed thousands of his own people. F uck the US government, I would love nothing more than to see the heads of the Bush administration taken out into the street and get a little taste of the death and torture they and those who preceeded them dished out to so many millions of poor people around the world. Peace is achieved through the barrel of a gun.

ReVoluTionNow! | 11/22/08

You know, Rev. is right. We have a long history of screwing with Latin America to protect U.S. business interests, even if that means undermining the democratically elected leaders of those countries. We believe in something called the dependency theory, or what some call economic imperialism. This means that we must keep un-industrialized countries like those in Latin America dependent on us for finished product, only because they are forced to give us the raw material, that guys like Chavez insist on keeping for their country. If they do not agree to do so we isolate them. In Chile we didn't like President Elect Salvador Allende, so we undermined his government, which lead to the military coup of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and one of the greatest human rights trageties of our time when thousands "disappeared" through the "dirty war." Still a big issue today. After Cuba was ripped from the Spanish possession through the Spanish American War, we wrote into their Constitution, through the Platt Amendment, that, to paraphrase, if Cuba did anything that we disliked we would invade. When President Ramon Grau nullified the Platt Amendment the U.S. replaced him with Batista, who allowed the U.S. to controll the countries economy - he was a puppet. The U.S. actually turned their back on Batsita during the Cuban Revolution, and hoped that they could buy off Fidel Castro as well, but we know that when Castro refused to allow his countries resources to be abused by the U.S., that the U.S. isolated Cuba forcing the country to rely on the Soviets to sustain their economy whos large sugar production needed to find a buyer - Cuba otherwise would have been strongly freemarket, and democratic. Same thing happened in Mexico, in which the U.S. almost constantly undermined democratic institutions there in favor of establishing rulers more of the Porfirio Diaz, dictator, type who would stabilize government, allow foriegn powers to run the country, and help governments such as the U.S. make more money off of their resources. It sounds like Rev. is more the expert on this subject though, so correct me if I'm off a little bit Rev.

RUSH for 2012 | 11/22/08

In my state, Virginia, yes home of Virginia Tech, the college I graduated from, you can still walk into any flea market and buy a gun, rifle, shotgun with cash and walk away with it. No background check. And can anyone explain why anyone needs an UZI or AK-47 for protection or hunting? They don't, which is why we continue to have problems. The Tech shooting ... this was a mentally ill man, who shot the people at VA. Tech and he was being treated and then released with medication and was to be seen for follow ups, when he didn't show up... how come there was no effort made to find him? They knew, by his writings that he felt like an outsider and loner and had talked about killing others. Everyone is blaming the Police at Tech, Tech , everyone but who should be blamed- the mental health system. That poor suffering man tried to get help, wrote violent letters in English that his English Professor read - hello! and instead of keeping him somewhere for his own protection and others, they released him with meds-often not taken when people are that sick, and when he didn't show up for his follow up they did ... nothing. So his family is now ostracized and blamed, his name is Mudd- for something he had no control over. Mental Illness is an illness- an imbalance of chemicals in your brain. How sad for everyone and it COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN PREVENTED. AS could the other school shootings, if parents gave 2 seconds to pay attention to their children.

accwcc | 11/22/08

Also- the comment about mentally ill people not being able to get guns. How many mentally ill people realize they are, number one, or seek help for it, number 2. So how many people actually have any record of mental illness. The ones who have probably have no desire to have a gun. So what's left is all the good old boys and girls and the Hunters and people who need it to protect their home- I guess those people have no police where they live or no pepper spray, or mace. If someone comes in your house with a gun- you are at a distinct disadvantage. And an intruder seeing a gun will make him what- less aggressive? Oh- that's right- upon seeing a gun they will run away. And any responsible gun owner with children keeps his gun locked in a case with the bullets somewhere else. Oh that's right, often they don't- that's how their children "accidently shoot themselves, their siblings and friends". Or better yet, go to school and take out a bunch of people, teachers too. Oh yes, everyone should have a gun. Never mind when the Constitution was written it was a different time, with much different circumstances. Remember slaves, no votes for woman, but let's cling onto this dinosaur- it's working so well and saving so many lives.

accwcc | 11/22/08

This has gone way off what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you have a gun it is not only a right but a responsibility. The guy who shot a trick or treater on Halloween because he though the 8 year old was an intruder? Should be jailed for life. The guy who shot a student who came to the door to ask for directions a few years back? Life term. You choose to have a weapon, you better be sure you are not killing an innocent because if you do you are a cold blooded murderer. Period.

Proud 2 b liberal | 11/22/08

Hey Rev, sorry I touched a nerve! My comment about Chavez was off subject of firearms being confiscated, as was your reply and most since. Wrong subject on both our parts. Both you and Rush are absolutely right and it's like a twilight zone moment to see those two pics in agreement. Ain't life grand? Well, as long as you're not a campesino where the US has been meddling. I made no reference to past history, just the observation that Chavez has engineered himself into what Bush would love to become - someone with uncontested power. Power corrupts, and Chavez has consolidated power to the level of a dictator. So he needs that power to correct things and resist further US meddling. Do you think he'll give that power up? The more power he gets, the more likely he'll be corrupted by it. We all know the saying. Just b/c US foreign policy has done immense wrong, and continues to do so, doesn't justify its opposition doing the same. Let's get back to the firearm issue. As to accwcc: "...can anyone explain why anyone needs an UZI or AK-47 for protection or hunting?" Yes, I can but I don't have to. You should ask that question of a black person facing a lynch mob, or ask a Bosnian girl being dragged off to a **** camp, or an African of the "wrong" tribe facing a machete wielding mob. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting and little to do with protection: it's about the right to revolt against the Gov't, pure and simple. To resist an oppressive gov't you must have the tools to do so, which means the same tools the gov't would use against its citizens. The fact that many innocents will die b/c some abuse that freedom is just one more of the tragic prices of freedom. Liberty usually has a terrible price to achieve, but the costs of living with it are something people don't give much thought.

peace | 11/22/08

Well, we also need our guns if we are going to invade other countries, dont we?

RUSH for 2012 | 11/22/08

Maybe we should invade Canada. You with me 2012?

Proud 2 b liberal | 11/22/08

I here ya. It's aboot time we invade Canada. Ay, Proud?

RUSH for 2012 | 11/22/08

What about poor Mexico? Ya wanna leave them out? I mean... they had such a great time when we invaded them before... why not do it again?

Your God(ess) | 11/22/08

We are good at fighting in two places at once so why not?

Proud 2 b liberal | 11/22/08

BTW, I am going to the southern front because I am freezing my butt off here in CT and need a warm vacation. I personnally will invade Cancun.

Proud 2 b liberal | 11/22/08

So we agree, guns good, no guns bad. We're going to need Charleton Heston to "part open" the doors to his gun collection for us if we are going to pull off a two front invasion though.

RUSH for 2012 | 11/22/08

I actually hate the things so is it ok if I just kill em with kindness?

Proud 2 b liberal | 11/22/08