Forums
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 03:57:47
By spaceotter [1672894]
If the Federal Government isn't upholding a Free State, then yes. Would you rather march into your loss of freedoms? I guess some would for comfort.


So more conjecture and no evidence, thats what I thought.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
spaceotter
ID: 1672894
Level: 14
Posts: 196
Score: 20
spaceotter [1672894]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 03:59:53
We're never going to see eye to eye on this are we? Not even a little.

23091231322pm31a35.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
spaceotter
ID: 1672894
Level: 14
Posts: 196
Score: 20
spaceotter [1672894]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:00:46
Show me arguments against what I've posted. Legally upheld arguments.

23091231322pm31a35.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:19:55
You dont have any arguments.

So far the only thing you have said to support the idea that the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment in order to fight against tyranny, is the fact that New York wanted an amendment to have the right to a militia.

Which

A. Doesnt mean that they wanted it because they wanted the ability to overthrow the federal government, it makes much more sense that they wanted it because there was no standing army and they wanted to be able to protect themselves

and

B. Even if they did, that doesnt mean that the founding fathers created the second amendment to fight against tyranny.


Everything else you have posted has been about the individual right to protect one's self (which I am not disputing), not the right to go shoot your local house representative if you want him out of office and think he is a tyrant.

And C. You made the claim, you provide the evidence to support the things you say. But if you want, here is an article to get you thinking.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/

Last Edited: Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:26:22
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
spaceotter
ID: 1672894
Level: 14
Posts: 196
Score: 20
spaceotter [1672894]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:27:42
you're hopeless. Anyone else with a truly open and inquisitive mind want to discuss this? Ted is boring me.

23091231322pm31a35.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
spaceotter
ID: 1672894
Level: 14
Posts: 196
Score: 20
spaceotter [1672894]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:30:08
You truly are a Liberal quoting the Atlantic. I'll read it though..

23091231322pm31a35.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
spaceotter
ID: 1672894
Level: 14
Posts: 196
Score: 20
spaceotter [1672894]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:37:34
I understand the premise of this article...but I guess the true question is, does the will of the majority prevail? Do our elected officials do what we want or do they do what feeds them more power? And, in the end isn't that what we ran from in England in the first place?

23091231322pm31a35.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 05:26:38
All I want you to do is at least recognize that it is a matter of opinion whether the founders intended the 2nd amendment to be a way to fight against a tyrannical government, it is not a fact. I assert that they never intended that highly armed civilians would band together in gangs to forcefully throw out government officials and any individual right to "bear arms" they gave in the 2nd amendment had to do with a person's ability to protect their family and/or property (one could also argue that it originally didnt extend any individual rights, but that is a separate argument). But feel free to dispute that if you so wish.

Or if you dont think if its a matter of opinion, show some evidence that proves they did. There are a lot of quotes in the Federalists papers from a few of them, it shouldnt be too hard.


I mean, here I am reading #29 written by Alexander Hamilton an all I see is the power of the federal government to call up the state militias, should be under the ultimate control of the Federal government, that in a democracy authority shouldndt be shown through force, and that the federal government shouldnt be in fear of being attacked by state militias. Dont really see anything about wanting them around so they can overthrow the government, I could be reading it wrong though. He seems to be more afraid that a leader of one of the state militias will become powerful and take over the country, but maybe that is just me.

You can read it for yourself if you want.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm


Last Edited: Sat Dec 29, 2012 05:37:01
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Sat Dec 29, 2012 23:10:26
Some may argue that the founding fathers of this country, never envisioned anything other than a single shot rifle in the hands of our fellow citizens.

while others can argue they never imagined thermal nuclear weapons in the hands of a standing army.

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2013 14:58:18
By TedThomas [887131]
All I want you to do is at least recognize that it is a matter of opinion whether the founders intended the 2nd amendment to be a way to fight against a tyrannical government, it is not a fact. I assert that they never intended that highly armed civilians would band together in gangs to forcefully throw out government officials and any individual right to "bear arms" they gave in the 2nd amendment had to do with a person's ability to protect their family and/or property (one could also argue that it originally didnt extend any individual rights, but that is a separate argument). But feel free to dispute that if you so wish.

Or if you dont think if its a matter of opinion, show some evidence that proves they did. There are a lot of quotes in the Federalists papers from a few of them, it shouldnt be too hard.


I mean, here I am reading #29 written by Alexander Hamilton an all I see is the power of the federal government to call up the state militias, should be under the ultimate control of the Federal government, that in a democracy authority shouldndt be shown through force, and that the federal government shouldnt be in fear of being attacked by state militias. Dont really see anything about wanting them around so they can overthrow the government, I could be reading it wrong though. He seems to be more afraid that a leader of one of the state militias will become powerful and take over the country, but maybe that is just me.

You can read it for yourself if you want.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm


It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of language. The founders were sticklers for precise language, and most scholars today (or at least as of several years back, when I was doing much research on this topic) agree that the language in the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear... a militia is a group of ordinary citizens... the right to bare arms shall not be infringed... thus ordinary citizens shall not have their rights to protection infringed by ANYBODY, especially not by a government.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2013 20:40:57
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
By TedThomas [887131]
All I want you to do is at least recognize that it is a matter of opinion whether the founders intended the 2nd amendment to be a way to fight against a tyrannical government, it is not a fact. I assert that they never intended that highly armed civilians would band together in gangs to forcefully throw out government officials and any individual right to "bear arms" they gave in the 2nd amendment had to do with a person's ability to protect their family and/or property (one could also argue that it originally didnt extend any individual rights, but that is a separate argument). But feel free to dispute that if you so wish.

Or if you dont think if its a matter of opinion, show some evidence that proves they did. There are a lot of quotes in the Federalists papers from a few of them, it shouldnt be too hard.


I mean, here I am reading #29 written by Alexander Hamilton an all I see is the power of the federal government to call up the state militias, should be under the ultimate control of the Federal government, that in a democracy authority shouldndt be shown through force, and that the federal government shouldnt be in fear of being attacked by state militias. Dont really see anything about wanting them around so they can overthrow the government, I could be reading it wrong though. He seems to be more afraid that a leader of one of the state militias will become powerful and take over the country, but maybe that is just me.

You can read it for yourself if you want.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm


It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of language. The founders were sticklers for precise language, and most scholars today (or at least as of several years back, when I was doing much research on this topic) agree that the language in the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear... a militia is a group of ordinary citizens... the right to bare arms shall not be infringed... thus ordinary citizens shall not have their rights to protection infringed by ANYBODY, especially not by a government.



And nowhere did they say with this language did they say that they created the 2nd amendment with the intent to give the people power to overthrow the democratic government they just created through force if they didnt agree with it. It is a right wing talking point taken from a Thomas Jefferson quote that doesnt exist.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2013 20:52:39
By TedThomas [887131]
By MachineGunSteve [184119]
By TedThomas [887131]
All I want you to do is at least recognize that it is a matter of opinion whether the founders intended the 2nd amendment to be a way to fight against a tyrannical government, it is not a fact. I assert that they never intended that highly armed civilians would band together in gangs to forcefully throw out government officials and any individual right to "bear arms" they gave in the 2nd amendment had to do with a person's ability to protect their family and/or property (one could also argue that it originally didnt extend any individual rights, but that is a separate argument). But feel free to dispute that if you so wish.

Or if you dont think if its a matter of opinion, show some evidence that proves they did. There are a lot of quotes in the Federalists papers from a few of them, it shouldnt be too hard.


I mean, here I am reading #29 written by Alexander Hamilton an all I see is the power of the federal government to call up the state militias, should be under the ultimate control of the Federal government, that in a democracy authority shouldndt be shown through force, and that the federal government shouldnt be in fear of being attacked by state militias. Dont really see anything about wanting them around so they can overthrow the government, I could be reading it wrong though. He seems to be more afraid that a leader of one of the state militias will become powerful and take over the country, but maybe that is just me.

You can read it for yourself if you want.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm


It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of language. The founders were sticklers for precise language, and most scholars today (or at least as of several years back, when I was doing much research on this topic) agree that the language in the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear... a militia is a group of ordinary citizens... the right to bare arms shall not be infringed... thus ordinary citizens shall not have their rights to protection infringed by ANYBODY, especially not by a government.



And nowhere did they say with this language did they say that they created the 2nd amendment with the intent to give the people power to overthrow the democratic government they just created through force if they didnt agree with it. It is a right wing talking point taken from a Thomas Jefferson quote that doesnt exist.


You are correct, because if the rights of the people to bare arms are not infringed, and the government is one of the people, by the people, for the people, and they have retained their natural rights, thus allowing for the smooth continuation of a democratic government, then until such time as the democratic government has becomes so undemocratic as to need redress, then there is no need for it to be overthrown, however... nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the intent of the 2nd Amendment WAS NOT to give the people the power to overthrow the democratic government, that is now less than democratic in our hypothetical analysis.

Thomas Jefferson was such a right winger, lol.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2013 21:02:06
It also doesnt say it isnt to fight against space aliens, whats your point.

I was arguing against someone who claimed that the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment specifically to protect against a "tyrannical government". I was simply stating that is a false claim, one that I hear all the time and people are never able to back up.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
bosox
ID: 278767
Level: 45
Posts: 6895
Score: 2512
bosox [278767]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2013 23:11:36
The idea of militias and 2nd amendment was to basically keep the local/state governments in charge of their own business, among other things. The early Americans had the idea of "government don't come bother me, I can take care of my own, and we can take care of our own community." There was no national guard, no real federal government, no standing army of course it goes without saying that the states were very independent of one another. My personal opinion of this constitutional right, and you can take it for what it's worth, was to keep the government completely localized and allow for citizens to be able to handle their own disputes. Remember, we have a very violent history in our culture, and it all stems from the individual people. Between the killings of the natives, witch hunts, lynchings, duels, the Wild West and any number of other standoff, the people in the US have pretty much always been armed and, from the time of the pilgrims through the 1800s, were pretty much fighting their way through this country.

I'm not sure the amendment was so much that we could keep the government in check, as it was the people were their own government locally and could have power in their communities and be ready to fight against people/groups seen as enemies. Though its absolutely correct that the funding fathers and others of the time were very much in favor of blood being spilled in the name of democracy among themselves. I forget the exact quote, and don't care to look it p, but some prominent early colonial American figure said something along the lines of democracy needs blood on the streets from time to time to run smoothly. Bt I don't think the 2nd amendment was covering that aspect, I think it was to just have the local governments just as powerful and independent as any federal one.

Brady.jpg
2mhtnhu.png

I buy bulk Morphine
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2013 00:19:39
If the idea of a militia was to basically "keep the local/state governments in charge of their own business", one could say that if we boil that responsibility down to its core essence, then doesn't it also follow that if we take it one step further, then the right to bare arms shall not be infringed means that each person is responsible for their own business, and no government should be allowed to take away a persons natural rights to protect his or her "business"?

We are too hung up on the fact that "arms" means guns these days... basically the founders were saying that each person has a natural right to self preservation and pursuit of happiness and liberty, and the ability to maintain those natural rights without interference from anyone else shall not be infringed.

The word "infringed" is important, because it implies that phrase I keep using: "natural rights".



Last Edited: Fri Jan 04, 2013 02:48:16
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2013 08:03:21
That's some interesting mental gymnastics you did to come to that conclusion, but whatever.

If you read the Federalists debates the main thing they were worried about was someone in say Virginia building a big army and using it to take over other states and installing a dictatorship, (because that was a relatively common occurrence in Europe's history) so they thought it was a good idea that every state had its own militia since there was no standing army. And they also thought it was a good idea that people be able to protect their homes in a relatively chaotic young America remembering that there were a lot of farmers, many people living in the "frontier", and no real "police" force in the vast majority of the country at this time.

What they dont discuss is the worry that the government that they carefully put checks and balances and built on the idea of democracy would some day become so tyrannical and bad that the people needed the right to "bear arms" in order to be able to overthrow it through a violent revolution.

That's really about it, its not really that complicated. You can interpret it how you want and Im fine with what the supreme courts decisions about individual rights and yaddah yaddah, but the argument that the founding fathers made the 2nd amendment specifically to arm the people so they have the ability to fight against a "tyrannical government" holds no water. Its a disingenuous right wing talking point.


You could argue they thought it was a good idea that people be armed in case some other country tried to invade their brand new country in order to install their own tyrannical government because that was an actual concern of theirs, but in that case I would argue that they would assume that people would be working with the militia. They werent expecting the people to rise up and fight a war by themselves with the guns in their house or to cause violent uprisings when they didnt like the federal government. Alexander Hamilton actually argues that the federal government should have ultimate control of the state militias for the express purpose of putting down any uprisings that might try to overthrow it.

Not to mention the Insurrection Act of 1807 was passed specifically to give the federal government the power to put down rebellions with the state militias, just saying.

Last Edited: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:25:42
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2013 14:11:41
Interesting mental gymnastics... sure I guess? Though I can not take credit for it so much, other than to say that I agree with it. Better, brighter, more learned humans than me have come to those conclusion, and I am only parroting their ideas.

I somewhat agree with your assessment, but I do not think you took it far enough is all. I like to take ideas all the way to their core. I believe that the full truth can be found at the core.

We humans are self-governing until we band together, thus I believe that we are all sovereign entities, who can and should form alliances. These alliances are called societies, and in a society there should be rules. Included in those rules should be the rule to do no harm to others, but that rule does not preclude ones rights to protect oneself from harm, which would be contradictory to natural law.

Militias, governments, federalism, democracy, socialism... all those notions are modern human constructs, which offer the opportunity for harmonious social cohabitation, but also the potential for abuse and enslavement. The Bill of rights, which Hamilton opposed, were put in place to secure for the citizens a reliable, written, guarantee of those rights a citizen of the newly formed government could count on.

Since you like Hamilton, I guess he said it best in Federalist #28:

"If the representatives of the People betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of Government..."

Last Edited: Fri Jan 04, 2013 19:20:59
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Ixtera
ID: 1623738
Level: 15
Posts: 205
Score: 153
Ixtera [1623738]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2013 17:52:36
I don't think controlling/banning guns will prevent mass shootings.

I do think it should be harder for people to own guns. I agree with some of the posts here which suggested things like better background checks, limiting ways guns can be purchased, and mandatory periodic reviews/testing of those who own guns.
And, of course, guns should always be stored properly secured. But even with all these measures in place, I'm certain mass shootings would still occur.

I put at least some of the blame for public mass shootings on the media by giving the killers so much press time. Someone who posted earlier made a valid point about how mass shootings related to gang violence barely get noticed outside the local area. By killing elementary school children, the Connecticut shooter has now "upped the anti" for the next one. So, in order for the next mass shooting to have the (perceived) desired effect, it will likely be even worse. Or, if it doesn't involve children, will it even be viewed by the media as being sufficiently "news worthy"?

If we could cull the assholes, homicidal lunatics, and stupid people, mass shootings would be dramatically reduced. But that's going a bit far, isn't it...

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
paddymac

ID: 594720
Level: 80
Posts: 460
Score: 91
eVÝpaddymac [594720]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 06:58:18
Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.

assgas.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CatHead

ID: 1581564
Level: 35
Posts: 3856
Score: 3581
BoWCatHead [1581564]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 07:14:33
By paddymac [594720]
Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


Maybe its relevance to modern day. Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

An "arm" is just a weapon, you think there should be no infringement, whatsoever, on what type of weapons people should have the right to keep and bear?

77b9b665-d95a-6578-1581564.png

^ RMB forum game. Click image to read more.
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
Gungrave
ID: 470221
Level: 58
Posts: 19090
Score: 13090
Gungrave [470221]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 07:36:19
By paddymac [594720]
Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


The founding fathers didn't foresee the coming of semi-auto and automatic weapons when they made that amendment


I think automatic weapons should be illegal or at the very least have a VERY stringent background check and long waiting period to get one.

axxsvl.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 08:12:41
Automatic weapons are illegal for the most part already.

The discussion is mostly around semi-automatic "assault" rifles that hold 30 round/100 round magazines.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
paddymac

ID: 594720
Level: 80
Posts: 460
Score: 91
eVÝpaddymac [594720]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:14:56
By Cathead [1581564]
By paddymac [594720]
Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


Maybe its relevance to modern day. Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

An "arm" is just a weapon, you think there should be no infringement, whatsoever, on what type of weapons people should have the right to keep and bear?


Yes, I have read the other posts. It doesn't matter what you or they think, it only matter what it says. So, I'll say it again.

Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.

assgas.png
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
PopadaPill

ID: 900338
Level: 60
Posts: 18591
Score: 12214
Ú.”PopadaPill [900338]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 17:37:04
People should have the right to murder vasts numbers of children with whatever gun they choose if the need takes them..whether they be a criminal or just an average Joe going postal,to hinder them in ANYWAY goes against a very very old piece of paper which would be bad...very bad mmmkay.

PopadaPIllSiggy_zps19cd92e3.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
LSD

ID: 883567
Level: 54
Posts: 13140
Score: 6971
LSD [883567]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 17:40:03
By paddymac [594720]

what part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


I don't understand the part where you idiots cling for dear life to a scrap of paper written over 2 centuries ago.

20uz85h.jpg
userbar714645cj5.gif
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 19:38:03
By paddymac [594720]
By Cathead [1581564]
By paddymac [594720]
Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


Maybe its relevance to modern day. Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

An "arm" is just a weapon, you think there should be no infringement, whatsoever, on what type of weapons people should have the right to keep and bear?


Yes, I have read the other posts. It doesn't matter what you or they think, it only matter what it says. So, I'll say it again.

Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


Now share with the class where it says you can keep and bear whatever the hell arms you feel like.

Since it only matters what it says, then show us where it says that.

DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 20:18:27
By TedThomas [887131]
By paddymac [594720]
By Cathead [1581564]
By paddymac [594720]
Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


Maybe its relevance to modern day. Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

An "arm" is just a weapon, you think there should be no infringement, whatsoever, on what type of weapons people should have the right to keep and bear?


Yes, I have read the other posts. It doesn't matter what you or they think, it only matter what it says. So, I'll say it again.

Amendment II

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 part of "shall not be infringed" do you idiots not understand.


Now share with the class where it says you can keep and bear whatever the hell arms you feel like.

Since it only matters what it says, then show us where it says that.


The argument can be made that the word "infringed" covers that ground. A limitation of choice in regards to the arms one can bare, could be considered an infringement.

Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
TedThomas

ID: 887131
Level: 55
Posts: 21397
Score: 15959
{CI}TedThomas [887131]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 20:23:32
If that were true at all, then you should be able to own a fully armed Apache helicopter or a FGM-148 Javelin if you wanted to.

But since it isnt true at all, you cant.

It does however allow you to have as many single shot muskets as your heart desires, so have at it.

Last Edited: Wed Jan 16, 2013 20:26:34
DSCN0726banner1_zpse9bade3d.jpg
Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
MachineGunSteve

ID: 184119
Level: 73
Posts: 5951
Score: 3930
BBMachineGunSteve [184119]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 20:48:28
By TedThomas [887131]
If that were true at all, then you should be able to own a fully armed Apache helicopter or a FGM-148 Javelin if you wanted to.

But since it isnt true at all, you cant.

It does however allow you to have as many single shot muskets as your heart desires, so have at it.


If the gun grabbers have their way, eventually even single shot muskets will be outlawed... that is the ultimate goal, ultimately... that is the objective... incremental infringement, until elimination is complete.



Super secret reinforced spam barrier 2.0
CoolHandLuke

ID: 1582871
Level: 25
Posts: 2807
Score: 928
CoolHandLuke [1582871]Reply | Quote | Report

Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2013 00:29:16
alrighty ted, show us where it says you cant have a semi-auto gun, or a assault rifle, or any other kind of "arms". I would love to see where it says that. Dont waste your time, because it DOESN'T say that anywhere, we have more going our way then yall when it comes to the constitution. But with American Idiots the constitution doesn't mean a damn thing anymore, its all about fear mongering (you know, what republicans are always accused of, you democrats are just as bad)

pride.png
dont ruin today by reliving yesterday's problems.
Forum Main>>Non Related>>Politics & Law>> Gun Control.
First  << 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 >>  Last