What Would Our Forefathers Think of America Today?

[Carol25]

What Would Our Forefathers Think of America Today?

By Janine Turner

I’ve often thought what a great movie there could be if our Founding Fathers came back and saw the way we live, dress, entertain ourselves, our politics and inventions they had never dreamed of.

It would be part comedic with Good ol’ Ben being as curious as he was and wooing the women in their dress of today to the others fascinated that we as a nation had come this far.

Well someone speaks of this on the serious side of the movie I’d like, and it does go something like this: (read at the link)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/16/janine-turner-fathers/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/16/janine-turner-fathers/)

continued on next post...

[Carol25]

For those who didn't read the link...


Brilliant and well read as they were, they would quickly surmise the threats to America. Alarmed by the bitter greed, they would stand at the pulpit of Congress and pound the gavel and say, "Awaken Patriots. Awaken your sense of unity! A Congress divided, for the sake of pride, will most certainly fall.

A Congress that betrays its constituents, for the sake of party line, will most assuredly falter. A Congress that bloats bills to the point of obscene obscurity will be condemned."

They would be astounded by a Congress that does not read its own works and warn, "A Congress that cannot or will not read the bills before they vote, before they represent the American people, will, without fail, lead their country and its people to doom."



Thomas Jefferson would recount his own words, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be

Benjamin Franklin would recount his own words, "Think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty”.

They would quote Samuel Adams' wisdom, "Be forewarned, the pooling of property and the redistributing of wealth are despotic and unconstitutional."

[Circe]

I tend to think that they would be appalled at the constant attempts to inject religion into politics.

[Carol25]

I tend to think that they would be appalled at the constant attempts to inject religion into politics.
Circe, I quite agree with you. Religion and politicsshould not be mixed. Who ever thought that solicitating the different wings of religion would garner favor for their party was just so wrong.

However, when you read the post from time and space, I think we should ask that God blesses our nation and gives the right path for our leaders.

I would hate to think that the people we have now are so infected with greed and pride that we cannot conduct the nations work without thinking of our people first. Is this what is happening to us now?

[flareon]

I, for one, know that I cannot begin to think what our Forefathers would want or like in this day and age. I'm smart enough to know that, if nothing else. I see no point in guessing or speculating because that's nothing more than an exercise in futility, and a huge waste of my time.

MO

And yet here you are. Thanks for the bump. :tonguewag:

[Carol25]

I agree with others when they say the founders would be alarmed at the apathy of the general population. When people once stood up to the British and the King, and people waited on the streets for news. while our population just goes on with usual activities and don't grasp the enormity of issues of today.

Although people did not always agree on the path, they were generally informed of the current events. When Thomas Edison said,

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be

after seeing our nation today, might add "never will be again."

[Carol25]

And some of the quotes may have been as humorous then as now and maybe as just as accurate...


In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
--John Adams (http://www.pithypedia.com/?author=John+Adams)

http://www.pithypedia.com/?authortag=Founding+Fathers (http://www.pithypedia.com/?authortag=Founding+Fathers)

[incidentally]

I think they would all say, "We tried to warn you." MO

Or quite possibly "we told you so".

[February]

They would be proud and overwhelmed that America elected Barack Obama.

[February]

:lol::lol: Sorry, but that is so far from what the founders would feel when they saw the radical agenda Obama is pushing through. Overwhelmed, perhaps, but by profound sadness and disgust at what the generations that followed them allowed to happen.
IMO


LOL Well that's your opinion.
I have a booklet of The Constitution and it outlines the founding fathers in depth.
They were kind of quirky.
I can see them scratching their heads at the genius of President Obama.

[Carol25]

LOL Well that's your opinion.
I have a booklet of The Constitution and it outlines the founding fathers in depth.
They were kind of quirky.
I can see them scratching their heads at the genius of President Obama.

I don't see that at all. Many were concerned about the executive branch weilding too much power, which I see with his Executive orders and influence on Congress.

BTW, Talking about scratching their heads, what about having the first black president. After all that discussion of whether or not to free the slaves! Never thought about that!

[February]

Thanks! You are giving me some needed levity with your posts!:thumbsup: A whole "booklet" on the Constitution? Outlining the founders in depth? I can see where you reached the resulting "logic"

IMO

My apologies. It is a condensed version. I've have had it for years when I was a paralegal.
Anyway, I'm sure you get the point. If not just google them. They were a weird bunch to say the least.

The glory is some of them were slave owners. Slave's built the white house and now a Black man resides there. Ain't it grand?
If you are informed about the history of slavery you will comprehend the victory is not just for black people but for America.

[flareon]

I think they would all say, "We tried to warn you." MO

I know. I think they would be shocked at just how low the bar has been set.

[flareon]

:lol::lol: Sorry, but that is so far from what the founders would feel when they saw the radical agenda Obama is pushing through. Overwhelmed, perhaps, but by profound sadness and disgust at what the generations that followed them allowed to happen.


IMO

I know. It is as though the last two administrations have been bent on destroying everything these people had set in place and not for the better.

[February]

I understand the history of slavery in America quite well. Isn't it ironic that the current President's family were slave owners? The triumph of America over slavery is indeed a victory, but not one solely represented by the current occupant of the White House.

IMO

I have heard about posters like you on this forum, therefore I'll let it go .
Your discontent with President Obama has nothing to do with his job performance. Carry on, but it will not be with my participation.

[LisaM22]

I beleive they would be appalled at the removal of God from the public square.

I beleive they would experience a sense of deja vu and deep, profound sadness.

IMO



Recorded by James Madison and purported to have been made by Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787

http://www.house.gov/forbes/prayer/prayerincongress.htm

what's sad is when the religious right attacks a Christian president for not being Cristian enough, we have added a generic god on our money, a generic god to our pledge, is that not enough for you, really please, stop complaining that you need god proselytized in our schools and court rooms and the like, (you can pray there without the government telling you to, can't you?, do you really need the government to tell you what to believe?) our forefathers would never of approved of pushing religion on the people, they knew there should be a line drawn between the church and state, though some leaders were and are still Christians, that does not mean we are a nation of Christians, we are a nation where our government doesn't push religion on it's people, yes some have succeeded over time in crossing that line in times of crisis, but the truth remains, separations of church and state is what is best for this country and are founding father knew that, they had seen what happens when church and state collide

[LisaM22]

Great talking points. Sadly, it's apparent that your understanding of the basis upon which this nation was founded, was learned from a textbook in a public school and your attempt to speak on what the founders would or would not approve of is (respectfully) quite laughable. Do you even know where the term "separation of church and state" derived? Because it was never part of the constitution nor was it ever intended to be.

IMO

that may be considered an insult to those coming from a private school, but believe me, it is not a insult to me or the majority of Americans, which btw, went to public schools

[LisaM22]

I attended public school. Becoming an autodidactic cured that.

IMO

I didn't know public school was a disease... learning is a life long adventure, in fact I would like to see Obama extend public school 4 more years for those that want a college education

I wonder if there was as big a fight over implementing a public schools system as there is now over a public health plan?

[Jay]

Great talking points. Sadly, it's apparent that your understanding of the basis upon which this nation was founded, was learned from a textbook in a public school and your attempt to speak on what the founders would or would not approve of is (respectfully) quite laughable. Do you even know where the term "separation of church and state" derived? Because it was never part of the constitution nor was it ever intended to be.

IMO


No, the phrase itself is not mentioned in the actual document, but if the 1st AM does not peripherally support it, what does?

Also, Article 6, section 3 peripherally addresses it:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Jay]

No the first Amendment does not peripherally support anything of the kind:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If you can read "separation of church and state" in any way into that statement, you are seeing things that do not exist. The clear intent of that language is that the government is prohibited from creating a national church (which is what England did) and prohibited from denying anyone the right to worship any way they see fit. No where in that statement...regardless of how you try and twist and misinterpret it, does it the inclusion of religion in every aspect of the American life....which includes public schools, public courts or any other public realm.

IMO


Well if we take the phrase as coined by Thomas Jefferson, he mentions it. The way I read it, it does more than peripherally state it, TJ must be seeing things also.


The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

[Circe]

Well if we take the phrase as coined by Thomas Jefferson, he mentions it. The way I read it, it does more than peripherally state it, TJ must be seeing things also.


The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Jay, with certain people it just doesn't matter how many times they are shown, in the very words of those who started our government, that there is to be a seperation of church and state, they simply will not beleive it and try to re-write history to make it come out the way they want it. For instance right now in Texas, the current Governor there is trying to appoint a woman to the education post who thinks that we SHOULD have a religious litmus test for anyone that wants to hold office, among other extreme views.

[lunchlady]

I think they would be happy with the Supreme Court's continuing efforts to make decisions based on the Constitution.

I think they would be dismayed by the depth of polarization between the two parties and the role of religion in that polarization.

I think they would really impressed with communications and news availability, and disappointed in how dumbed-down most of the content is.

I think they would be impressed by our public education system, and disappointed by how difficult it still is for most people to think for themselves or have an original idea.

I think they would be impressed by US wealth and power in the world, but alarmed by the current decline of our economy, the lack of development in our diplomatic corps, and tattered state of our citizen army.

[Jay]

This idea of "separation of church and state" attributed to Jefferson is misguided..




You asked how I attributed the 1st AM to the separation of church and state, so I posted a link from the very man who coined it, and now it does not apply???

Let's now move on to a US SC ruling discussing it:

II

A

This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971). At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable, Ibid.


In every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible. [p673]

The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a "wall" between church and state, see, e.g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. [n1] The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.




http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.html

[Jay]

This is where we part ways. You wish to rely on the SC's interpretation of what they think the founders must have meant (mainly because their agenda is to remove God from the public square). I prefer to rely on the actual context and words of the founders to determine intent. The SC also said that blacks were nothing more than property and therefore an escaped slave must be returned to his master. Elevating the SC to some sort of "god" when it comes to interpreting the constitution is a mistake IMO.


You asked me to entwine the 1st AM with the separation of church and state, twice I have done it and it still does not apply????


If you wish to rely on the actual document and words of the founders, tell me what "reasonable" means in the 4th AM?

Is there any mention of a general definition in the Federalist papers?

[LisaM22]

the amount of religion currently in government is obviously more then our forefather thought necessary or we would have more, most of what we have was weaseled in later during times of crisis, so asking for more now and saying the forefathers would of wanted it is just lies to get more of your own personal beliefs to be pushed by government, simple as that

a simple test to determine if it is right or not is ask yourself if this was <pick any other religion> doing this, would I be against it, then you will have your answer if it should be done with <your religion here> or not

[LisaM22]

Well if we take the phrase as coined by Thomas Jefferson, he mentions it. The way I read it, it does more than peripherally state it, TJ must be seeing things also.


The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

it amazes me how the religious right wants to change this country into a theocracy and claims that is what the forefathers would of wanted, America will never allow this country to become a theocracy, it wont happen, were not all Christians in this country and those that are, are not all the same kind of Christians, we would have another religious war on our hands - another Christian leader once tried to erase jews from his country, history doesn't look kind on that man, the country survived but at a horrible cost, to many religious wars to list, but none of them was a good thing

[LisaM22]

It amazes me how frightened progressives are regarding religion in this country that they do everything they can to deny its existence in the formation of this nation. The palpable fear boggles my mind.

IMO

religion doesn't frighten me, many of my friends and family are Christians, in fact most, but that doesn't mean them or I support a theocracy, though I can think of a couple friends and family members I have that would love that, but they are in the extreme minority

[LisaM22]

How much have you actually STUDIED the founding and founders to make that's you an expert on what the founders would feel about the current derth of faith in this nation?

And as a Jew, I give thanks to God daily to live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian values. There is nowhere else on earth I would rather live.

IMO

all you have to do is look at history and you can see what I wrote is true


Lisa Said
the amount of religion currently in government is obviously more then our forefather thought necessary or we would have more, most of what we have was weaseled in later during times of crisis, so asking for more now and saying the forefathers would of wanted it is just lies to get more of your own personal beliefs to be pushed by government, simple as that

a simple test to determine if it is right or not is ask yourself if this was <pick any other religion> doing this, would I be against it, then you will have your answer if it should be done with <your religion here> or not

and the test I added in there, seems like a simple one don't you agree? why would you want to force anything on the people from your own religion that you would not want forced on you from someone elses religion?

[LisaM22]

How much have you actually STUDIED the founding and founders to make that's you an expert on what the founders would feel about the current derth of faith in this nation?

<snip>

IMO

is any faith dying in this country? this country is alive with many spiritual beliefs, religious freedom for all, the founders would be proud of that accomplishment, that is no easy task, religious zealots pop up all the time trying to take away that freedom, we have done well as a nation in respect to religious freedom

[LisaM22]

As long as I have lived in this country, no one from any religion has ever forced anything on me or anyone else I know. <snip>

IMO

they have tried and failed many times, some have succeeded in our public schools until caught, you should be thankful that separation of church and state has worked for you, it should work for everyone

[LisaM22]

I truly don't think you know what a theocracy is beyond the progressive talking points you've learned from the left wing blogs or from googling the definition on the internet.

IMO

the definition works for me, I do not want it, do you? separation of church and state is what is best for this country, it is the only way to keep religious freedom for all the people of this country, it works, no reason to change that

[LisaM22]

Yes, all faith is dying in this country. People no longer understand and value what our founders shed their blood for....and it has to do with the Creator and the gift of this Republic. Our founders were never about denying God's hand in this nation, nor the removal of Judeo-Christian values from our daily lives or the public square. The progressives have destroyed what was once a great nation by taking the founders' own words and twisting and using them against them and ultimately this nation. The founders were quite prescient in their statements that the destruction of this nation would not be from external forces, but would come at the hands of those within this country.

IMO

if they were not against it like you say, you would see a lot more of it around you in government, the fact is you do not, anything you do see can be traced to something added way after, like the pledge or god printed on our money, not the work of the original founding fathers - they wanted religious freedom for all and for the government to not endorse any one religion over another, it's the religious zealots that keep trying to mix government and religion

this country was run for the last 8 years by the religious right, the appointed one by god himself according to some Christians, what happened, doesn't look like it went so well

[LisaM22]

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with it. You're perceived "persecution" is just that. I have yet to see any gays hanging from light posts or women who've had abortions being stoned in the street. I have seen crosses by the side of the road or children bowing their heads in silent prayer at school.. THE HORRORS.:scared:

:rolleyes:

IMO

your the one with the perceived "persecution", do you really want the government pushing religions, Scientology, ect... any religion they choose, not me, I want no part of that

as far as your saying I have a perceived "persecution", I fit neither of those categories, but I do see the religious right attacking BOTH of those categories, taking away their freedoms in the name of their faith and yes people have been killed by Christians in the name of god for those things, but that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about government, your free to have the church you want, the faith you want, ect... you just are not free to force you faith on others via the government

as far as children "bowing their heads in silent prayer at school" that has NEVER been a issue, the issue is teacher telling students they will go to hell if they do not believe, the teachers need to make sure the environment is open to all faiths and beliefs and not push any one over the other, children are free to pray all they want as long as they do not disturb other students that are trying to learn - yes believe it or not, school is a place children go to learn... not be proselytized

[LisaM22]

There is no country on this earth I fear less of becoming a theocracy is the US. And I didn't have that fear under Bush, nor any other President. Your fear of religion (if that's what it is...because that is how it comes across) is skewing your perceptions.

IMO

I take that back, I do fear it becoming a theocracy to the god of Government.

IMO

so you would not care if Scientology was pushed in the government arena, what about any other religions, which religions exactly do you approve of the government pushing on the people? what about FSM and it's idea of intelligent Design by our creator, should it be taught in our schools

timeandspace said
"I take that back, I do fear it becoming a theocracy to the god of Government."

with separation of church and state that will never be an issue

[LisaM22]

I have no problem with government openly embracing Judeo-Christian values by supporting the Ten Commandments in Courthouses or holding prayers at the opening of Congressional sessions or having our leaders swear an oath to God to uphold the Constitution or declaring Christmas a national holiday, or having a national day of prayer or having our presidents speak of God in their speeches to the country. Not one of those activities is not something our founders would not have approved of and not one of those things is forcing a specific religion on anyone.

IMO

I have no problem with Christmas either, it's also a secular holiday for many just like easter

I have no problem if someone wants to swear on any religions bible, that is up to them, if they think it will make them be more honest, please do

the Ten Commandments in Courthouses, I do have a problem with that, it has no place there any more then any other religions propaganda belongs there, if you allow one, you must allow ALL

I have no problem when Obama says anything about his faith such as god bless America or whatever, as long as he is not saying he wants to make a policy because of it, I do have a problem with his and Bush's faith based initiatives though as that crosses the line


in one courtroom in America a judge would not let a child be adopted into a loving home because the parent were not Christians, do you approve of that, religion has no place in the courtroom, that is a place for the rule of law

[LisaM22]

With the progressive's use of "separation of church and state" as a bludgeon against our Judeo-Christian founding, it already IS an issue.

IMO

what founding was that you want to take credit for? the raping and killing of Indians, the buying and selling of slaves, the lawlessness of the time, do you really think those were Judeo-Christian values? if you want to claim them, they are all yours as that is how our ancestors got this country and built it, this country had a tough start, no doubt about that, I do not think some know exactly what life was like back then and truly what people were thinking either, but seperation of church and state has worked well for this country for many many years (all of our lives in fact), it's the path we should stay on

the real issue is trying to say this country is any one religion, that has never been and never will be true.... trying to make up facts to support this countries founders were ALL any one religion is non-sense, it just isn't true and can never be proved to be true

[LisaM22]

Any response to this nonsensical post would get me banned. I was not speaking to you in any manner....why don't you move along and bully someone else. :tongueside:

TIA


IMO

if you do not support what those groups support, just say so, it's much easier

[LisaM22]

what it all really boils down to is equal rights for all, and if you mix church and state it just doesn't work as when you include one religion you have to include them all, and that just creates trouble

[LisaM22]

I don't know what groups you are talking about. What is a family page? And what does that have to do with the discussion we were having?

they are a group of Christians that have an agenda like the one you described no one has, RightProper was just trying to make a point that their are those out their that want to turn this country into a theocracy

I think this is the link to their site
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/focus-family

[LisaM22]

Well, as I stated up thread, I am Jewish and don't belong to any Christian organizations. I would especially not belong to one in favor of a theocracy since I don't intend on converting anytime soon.

IMO

good for you, no need to join, just be aware that fanatical religious groups do exist and they do have an agenda, people ignored hitler thinking he was just a fanatic, but especially in hard times you have to watch the fanatics, they try to rise from the dead during those times more then any other

[LisaM22]

i am surprised Christians have never asked the schools to teach Hebrew, that would be allowed, isn't that the language of the real bible, does not anyone want to learn that? I think that would be a interesting class

[LisaM22]

I can appreciate that. One of the precepts I have always admired about your faith: do the best unto yourself, with the least amount of prejudice to others.

Did i paraphrase that correctly? it's been awhile.

is that a Jewish belief, seems that they would be for separation of church and state if so, course Christians Chery pick from their religion all the time, so I suppose the same could be true for those of the Jewish faith, I don't know much about Judaism as none of my family or friends are Jewish, not that I have anything against them, just don't know any

[Jay]

the Ten Commandments in Courthouses, I do have a problem with that,



I can't remember any challenge to such a display surviving?

The SC has a frieze of Moses and the Ten, but this is a historical overview of various "lawgivers" throughout time, and is more secular than religious.


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf


If we remember the CJ Roy Moore fiasco in AL and the display outside the courtroom, on the plaza, he was ordered to take it down.

[LisaM22]

I can't remember any challenge to such a display surviving?

The SC has a frieze of Moses and the Ten, but this is a historical overview of various "lawgivers" throughout time, and is more secular than religious.


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf


If we remember the CJ Roy Moore fiasco in AL and the display outside the courtroom, on the plaza, he was ordered to take it down.

yep, I have no problem with that, doesn't have a religious feel to it

[LisaM22]

Our founders were fluent in several languages which allowed them to read the classics in their original mother tongue.

As to whether schools ever taught Hebrew, I found an interesting article regarding the founder's and their classic education which states:



http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/founding-fathers.html

why is it Christians no longer care to learn the language of the bible? looks like even Harvard has dropped that requirement.... wonder if Cristian schools require it, I doubt it, but an interesting thought

[LisaM22]

JMO

Our Forefathers would be appalled that the right to bear arms is being used as an excuse for thousands and thousands of murders every year.

We are outraged over the 3,000 murders on 9-11. That same year there were over 30,000 murders (not including the WTC and Pentagon casualties) committed by Americans against Americans on US soil.

I fear the bad guys having guns, but I fear the good guys not having guns more - I like it that bad guys do not know if a good person has a gun in their house or not

[Jay]

JMO

Our Forefathers would be appalled that the right to bear arms is being used as an excuse for thousands and thousands of murders every year.




Gun control is one of the hottest debated topics in the country.

Although the 2nd Amendment, that is, an individual right to bear arms, has not been incorporated to apply to the states by the US SC yet, it will eventually, IMO.

Most states, if not all, have a right to bear arms clause/AM in thier own Constitution's.

[LisaM22]

And, I would caution anyone purchasing a gun for defense to know their weapon and know themself. IMO First question a person should ask before even purchasing a gun is whether or not they can actually use it, because pointing it at some is not a deterrence, if you cannot shoot them. It becomes another weapon to be used against you. Also, for safety, know your ammunition, if you have children in the next room, or live in an apt type situation, most recommended are the jacketed hollow points, maximum safety and maximum stopping power. Finally, become proficient and stay proficient, for your safety and the safety of those around you. (these are just BASIC tips, so please consult and use a certified range)

:biggrin: I can almost guarantee Lisa22 knows the above; simply repeating it for anyone considering the purchase of a gun.

Remember too, the 2nd amendment covers your right to bear arms, it does not instruct you on your local laws. Not all states have a "Make My Day" law, so best to learn first, not after.

I don't own a gun, never have, but I don't want the bad guys to know that, it's just our little secret.... ;)

[LisaM22]

:thumbsup: But, if you ever do, i know you would take the above steps and then some to do it safely.

you betcha :)

[LisaM22]

:biggrin: Another resource I forgot to mention, if anyone is considering buying a gun, talk to your local police dept. They can be very helpful, as the last thing they want to do is attend to the unintended consequences of someone having a gun.

:blushing: Forgive me, have a thing with safety.

np, if I ever have a gun, I was taught don't point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot