Can someone please give me a valid reason to own a semi auto gun? - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty F · 02-20-2013, 04:50 PM

What a shitty life you nutters must have living in such fear.

bl4h · 02-20-2013, 04:52 PM

its like a retarded kid calling you stupid for knowing more. its like a homeless person mocking you for having more. this Dirty_F guy lol

slapass · 02-20-2013, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

I'm 41 this year, and my life of crime ended when I was 19. Like I said, I don't know how it works over there, but the last 3 times I've been stopped it's because the police 'thought I was going too fast'. I wasn't, any of the times - I accelerate fairly (but not overly) quick from a standing start to the speed limit, at that has been enough to get stopped each time. Even *if* I accelerated hard until I hit the limit, at no time am I ever going any faster than a person driving within the limit, who didn't hit a red light/etc. It's the reason it annoys me more than being stopped for breaking the law or even being a dick - I've always took my punishment on the chin, and never have made any excuses nor whined when getting caught for my various offences I've actually committed, even way back 20 years ago. To get stopped because some egotistic cunt in a uniform with a wonder woman belt on 'thinks' you 'may' be going too fast is BS no matter how you dress it up, and I'll act a fucking dick every time it happens, just to piss them off. Petty, yes, but meh, my own ego kicks in and that's how it is.

No idea what the story about someone else had to do with my quote, or why you're telling me, but I stand by it - all old bill are power tripping fucksticks. Yes, we need them, of course we do, because they are the ones with the tools to do the job of catching criminals, but don't tell me ANY copper is some kind of nice guy - they are all, without exception, the opposite once they put on that uniform, and that goes for my personal friends in the force too.

Not sure where you are but it is way different in the states. They will size you up of course and if you are young ethnic or dress like a hood, it will go bad. But a normal person who just says hey whats up is pretty likely to just a ticket or a warning. Most cops don't want to do paperwork or get worked up over the small stuff.
You are playing into their trip as now they need to fuck with you like you are with them. IF they win most of the time that is pretty much how the deck is stacked so maybe you want to think about your long term goals or just keep paying tickets etc.

Jel · 02-20-2013, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Not sure where you are but it is way different in the states. They will size you up of course and if you are young ethnic or dress like a hood, it will go bad. But a normal person who just says hey whats up is pretty likely to just a ticket or a warning. Most cops don't want to do paperwork or get worked up over the small stuff.
You are playing into their trip as now they need to fuck with you like you are with them. IF they win most of the time that is pretty much how the deck is stacked so maybe you want to think about your long term goals or just keep paying tickets etc.

I don't get tickets because I don't do anything to get one. They can't give you a ticket here because they 'think' you are speeding. I'm not a complete fool lol, if I've done something, and been caught, I stfu and take whatever the punishment is. Fucked if I'm cowing down when I've done nothing wrong just because some prick has a policeman's uniform on though, nor will I be spoken to like I'm less than them, or feel the need to lick their arse

Matt 26z · 02-20-2013, 05:14 PM

How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

kyro · 02-20-2013, 06:06 PM

welcome back sleazydream

dyna mo · 02-20-2013, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

that's not what the supreme court decided the founding fathers meant by the 2nd amendment, which simply codifies the existing right. that code is a right as well as a regulation, the regulation being that *arms* are determined to be the most common weapons used by the public at that particular time.

Rochard · 02-20-2013, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

The problem is how you define the 2nd amendment.

I believe the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to bear arms, but instead is about the government having a military. The 2nd amendment says militia but because we define the 2nd amendment using modern English standards, it's being ignored. It does not say "any civilian has the right to bear arms", but it does say the "militia has the right to bear arms".

But the courts have decided otherwise, and now any eighteen year old can have an assault rifle.

I'm really surprised the government hasn't said that when the 2nd amendment was written, the only "arms" they had in mind was a one shot musket... And from here on out, that's all you are allowed to have. (Yes, I know cities / states have tried to limit which firearms we can have and have lost.)

Jaeger · 02-20-2013, 07:20 PM

just read the first post no more,

but its simple, man without his sword, has no freedom.

define sword however you want... point really is without something to protect yourself against an oppressive state or violent people you are not free.

Helix · 02-20-2013, 07:23 PM

You just don't get it. No reason is required. It's not up for discussion.

Jaeger · 02-20-2013, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helix

You just don't get it. No reason is required. It's not up for discussion.

i agree despite being in a country where i cant own a gun but i agree fully

sarettah · 02-20-2013, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It does not say "any civilian has the right to bear arms", but it does say the "militia has the right to bear arms".

Actually, it says the people have the right to bear arms:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not say "states", it does not say "citizens", it does not say "military" or "militia members". It says "the people", as in "We, the people", which is all of us.

And, the Supreme Court has ruled that it means that too.

Quote:

the Supreme Court states in context, "it was clearly an individual right" (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body" (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right" (p. 6).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...cond-amendment

In there they are talking about DC v Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

.

Rochard · 02-20-2013, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Actually, it says the people have the right to bear arms:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not say "states", it does not say "citizens", it does not say "military" or "militia members". It says "the people", as in "We, the people", which is all of us.

.

That is NOT what is says.

Quote:

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.

You wrong; It says militia. It's the fourth word of the Second Amendment. You completely cut this part out.

sarettah · 02-20-2013, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

That is NOT what is says.

You wrong; It says militia. It's the fourth word of the Second Amendment. You completely cut this part out.

I understand that the word militia is in there. However it in no way says that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The actual ratified version has one comma and it clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. As I said, the Supreme Court said that it was clearly a right of the people, not of the milita. They addressed that very issue in the decision I linked to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Actual Supreme Court Decision, Page 7

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Your argument ignores the fact that there is no amendment needed to give the militia the right to arms. In the constitution proper it states that the congress can arm the militia.

From Article 1, section 8:

Quote:

....To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for 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, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

.

CyberHustler · 02-20-2013, 09:21 PM

Rochard · 02-20-2013, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

I understand that the word militia is in there. However it in no way says that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The actual ratified version has one comma and it clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. As I said, the Supreme Court said that it was clearly a right of the people, not of the milita. They addressed that very issue in the decision I linked to.

So why would they say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? Because they were bored? Because it looked better? Or because they were talking about arming the militia, which was made up of... the citizens....

You can argue this with me until you are blue in the face. But no matter what you say the first four words of the Second Amendment say "a well regulated militia" and you ignore this. You completely left it out when you first posted the Second Amendment because you consider it not important.

SleazyDream · 02-20-2013, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

semi auto handguns came about in the 1800s.. the constitution was a wee bit earlier than that

SleazyDream · 02-20-2013, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

It's the question itself that's flawed.

It asks why we "need" to posses these guns.

That's just like asking us to prove that we have a "need" to vote, to speak freely, to have the privacy in our homes respected, to practice our own religion.

It's not a "Bill of Needs". It's a Bill of Rights.

If you don't think much of our right to have firearms, take it up with the Founding Fathers. The American Revolution began on the day when the British Army attempted a gun-grab at Lexington-Concord. That was enough of a threat to their freedom to mean war. And the weapons in question were not just sporting arms, but the military style assault rifles of the age. The concept behind the Second Amendment is broad enough to include self-defense, but it's really grounded on the idea that one of the best ways to keep government tyranny at bay is a well-armed citizenry, capable of revolt, that will keep the lawgivers on their toes.

If you don't like that, those Founding Fathers had enough foresight to imagine that changing conditions might require adjustments from time to time and they accommodated that, too. If you can convince 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states, you can change the Bill of Rights and repeal the Second Amendment. Don't count on that happening any time soon. But hey, go knock yourself out trying. Don't be surprised if others grab your coat tails and try to repeal the First Amendment and the Fifth, Sixth and the Fourtheenth, claiming that all of them only protect criminals. (In fact they protect citizens, every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and when the rights of criminal suspects are taken away, the rights of every citizen go with them.)

Until you manage to amend the Constitution, we don't have to prove any need to vote, to speak freely, to worship God, to buy and sell porn - or to own, carry, and use an AR-15.

PS - Anyone looking to sell one in nice condition?

typical lawyer, you missed my ENTIRE point and changed the topic.

how on earth do you survive not being able to READ?

I never said people don't need guns, I am talking about semi auto guns and handguns. The government already restricts some firearms, ie full auto, so your whole argument is bullshit.

answer the question on topic and prove you actually have a clue what you're talking about or let everyone know you like talking and billing people but really don't have a clue.

sarettah · 02-20-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You completely left it out when you first posted the Second Amendment because you consider it not important.

I did not post the second amendment. I posted the statement from the second amendment that states that the people have the right, etc. I never said it was the entire amendment. So, quit trying to twist it up.

.

stinkyfingers · 02-20-2013, 11:16 PM

CommonSense4u · 02-20-2013, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

semi auto handguns came about in the 1800s.. the constitution was a wee bit earlier than that

You can fire a revolver just as fast as a semi auto.. Before you try to argue about something .. understand wtf you are talking about. How many of you anti gun asshats think semi auto shoots faster than a revolver? Can any of you idiots understand that?

SleazyDream · 02-21-2013, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommonSense4u

You can fire a revolver just as fast as a semi auto.. Before you try to argue about something .. understand wtf you are talking about. How many of you anti gun asshats think semi auto shoots faster than a revolver? Can any of you idiots understand that?

idiot. I have always said bann all handguns. semi auto and revolvers. revolvers are semi auto.

the semi auto from the 1800's I was referring to (colt) WAS a revolver, it was and is often referred to as the first reliable semi auto handgun

Matt 26z · 02-21-2013, 12:37 AM

Semi auto rifles are almost never used in crimes. When is the last time a gas station was robbed with an AK47? I would venture to guess that career criminals don't even want those guns since they can't be concealed.

This "assault rifle" debate raging in the US right now is distracting us from the real topic; how to prevent residents of ghettos from getting any kind of gun. If that supply can somehow be cut off, you've just solved the gun problem in America.

SleazyDream · 02-21-2013, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Semi auto rifles are almost never used in crimes. When is the last time a gas station was robbed with an AK47? I would venture to guess that career criminals don't even want those guns since they can't be concealed.

This "assault rifle" debate raging in the US right now is distracting us from the real topic; how to prevent residents of ghettos from getting any kind of gun. If that supply can somehow be cut off, you've just solved the gun problem in America.

most crimes involving guns use handguns. I'm actually more against the public having handguns than semi-auto or 'assault' rifles. but i see no need for ANY semi auto as most handguns including revolvers are semi auto.

everytone thinks they are smart but reality is most people are stupid and shouldn't have guns

MrBottomTooth · 02-21-2013, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

idiot. I have always said bann all handguns. semi auto and revolvers. revolvers are semi auto.

the semi auto from the 1800's I was referring to (colt) WAS a revolver, it was and is often referred to as the first reliable semi auto handgun

Revolvers are not considered semi-auto. You can't just change terms to mean what you want. Ever hear of single action vs double action? Of course not, you're stupid.

MakingItPay · 02-21-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

What a shitty life you nutters must have living in such fear.

It is the non gun people that are so afraid. Why else do you want us to get rid of our guns? Because you are scared somebody is going to shoot you. Why would we be afraid. We are heavily armed.

Dirty F · 02-21-2013, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

It is the non gun people that are so afraid. Why else do you want us to get rid of our guns? Because you are scared somebody is going to shoot you. Why would we be afraid. We are heavily armed.

Wtf are you talking about you fucking imbecile? I don't live in your shithole country. I don't have to fear people with guns. And neither do i need them.

Fuck man, you people are idiots. Unbelievable.
Now I am the one who's living in fear

candyflip · 02-21-2013, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So why would they say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? Because they were bored? Because it looked better? Or because they were talking about arming the militia, which was made up of... the citizens....

You can argue this with me until you are blue in the face. But no matter what you say the first four words of the Second Amendment say "a well regulated militia" and you ignore this. You completely left it out when you first posted the Second Amendment because you consider it not important.

He's not ignoring it you idiot. He's explaining it to you based on the Supreme Courts ruling. You are either to dense to understand or you just don't want to.

I'm going to go with the dumb angle.

MakingItPay · 02-21-2013, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

most crimes involving guns use handguns. I'm actually more against the public having handguns than semi-auto or 'assault' rifles. but i see no need for ANY semi auto as most handguns including revolvers are semi auto.

everytone thinks they are smart but reality is most people are stupid and shouldn't have guns

SleazyDream is correct. Handguns are used in most crimes. It is a valid desire to want to get rid of all guns. It is also a valid desire that I want to flap my arms and fly to the moon, but neither is going to happen. Being from the US, I accept that we live in a county with people that are armed. Nothing wrong with wanting a world where nobody shoots anybody, stabs anybody, and cars don't run on gas, but instead on candy, and we all get along. But look how venomous people get when just having a gun discussion. People are called stupid, idiots, nutters, and eventually war breaks out, and the guy with the best weapons and tactics wins.

Rochard · 02-21-2013, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

I did not post the second amendment. I posted the statement from the second amendment that states that the people have the right, etc. I never said it was the entire amendment. So, quit trying to twist it up.

.

Here is exactly what you said:

Quote:

Actually, it says the people have the right to bear arms:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All you did was post a portion of the second amendment. You completely ignored the fact that it's discussing a "well regulated militia".

Rochard · 02-21-2013, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip

He's not ignoring it you idiot. He's explaining it to you based on the Supreme Courts ruling. You are either to dense to understand or you just don't want to.

I'm going to go with the dumb angle.

I am well aware of the Supreme Court's standing on the issue.

At the same time, I am also well aware of how we (and thus the Supreme Court) has defined the second amendment throughout the years. Prior to 1965, the second amendment was not used to defend our right to own firearms. It was used to define, protect, and encourage militias - which was expected to be used to protect our country if we were ever attacked. This lasted until 1903 (I believe) with the Militia Act of 1903 (I think that's what it's called), when the militia officially became part of the US military in the form of the - surprise - National Guard.

It's funny really - our government expected it's citizens to defend the government using the second amendment. Now it's just the opposite - we are afraid the government is going to take away our second amendment.

In the meantime, firearms and ammo are flying off the shelves.

MakingItPay · 02-21-2013, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Wtf are you talking about you fucking imbecile? I don't live in your shithole country. I don't have to fear people with guns. And neither do i need them.

Fuck man, you people are idiots. Unbelievable.
Now I am the one who's living in fear

LOL. That is why your opinion means nothing to us. Sorry. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Don't shoot me!

You are like a guy that lives in Costa Rica, telling people in Canada they should get rid of coats! ;)

slapass · 02-21-2013, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

I am amazed we all make the assumption that they are not referring to the military. Isn't the militia and the military the same thing in their time. The US didn't have a standing army, we had a militia. It is totally possible that this one line that we are all excited about is being misinterpreted. It doesn't mention tyranny or uprising or anything like that. The security of the state would be against outside forces not the state itself. Not sure if we have the notes of the guys who came up with it.

"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."

Dirty F · 02-21-2013, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

LOL. That is why your opinion means nothing to us. Sorry. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Don't shoot me!

You are like a guy that lives in Costa Rica, telling people in Canada they should get rid of coats! ;)

No, i'm just telling you that you are an imbecile. Which funny enough most gun nutters turn out to be.
I can't really blame you though. You're born as a dumb backwards American. I should feel sorry for you actually.

12clicks · 02-21-2013, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The problem is how you define the 2nd amendment.

I believe the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to bear arms, but instead is about the government having a military. The 2nd amendment says militia but because we define the 2nd amendment using modern English standards, it's being ignored. It does not say "any civilian has the right to bear arms", but it does say the "militia has the right to bear arms".

But the courts have decided otherwise, and now any eighteen year old can have an assault rifle.

I'm really surprised the government hasn't said that when the 2nd amendment was written, the only "arms" they had in mind was a one shot musket... And from here on out, that's all you are allowed to have. (Yes, I know cities / states have tried to limit which firearms we can have and have lost.)

what you believe is not relevant to the facts.

MakingItPay · 02-21-2013, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

No, i'm just telling you that you are an imbecile. Which funny enough most gun nutters turn out to be.
I can't really blame you though. You're born as a dumb backwards American. I should feel sorry for you actually.

Your argument devolves into calling me names and I'm the imbecile? You should feel sorry for me. I have to be around scary guns, and your country is like the small world ride at DisneyLand. Seriously, I'm sure you are a smart guy, just a little angry, and it is hard for you to see our point of view when you live under completely different circumstances. Can't we all just get a long?

12clicks · 02-21-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I am amazed we all make the assumption that they are not referring to the military. Isn't the militia and the military the same thing in their time. The US didn't have a standing army, we had a militia. It is totally possible that this one line that we are all excited about is being misinterpreted. It doesn't mention tyranny or uprising or anything like that. The security of the state would be against outside forces not the state itself. Not sure if we have the notes of the guys who came up with it.

"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."

a little context for those of you typing when you should be reading.

The United States Supreme Court has defined the Militia in clear and unambiguous terms:

The Militia is all males physically capable of acting for the common defense, expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, arms of the kind in common use at the time, part of the "ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT." U.S. v Miller (1939)

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve Militia... The States cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision (Second Amendment) out of view, prohibit THE PEOPLE from keeping and bearing arms." Presser v Illinois (1886)

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution." - James Madison
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry
"Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Patrick Henry
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." - Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Madison
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples? liberty?s teeth." - George Washington
"When firearms go, all go. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington

uninformed children and politicians are the only types of people who are confused or pretend to be confused by the founding father's intent.

Dirty F · 02-21-2013, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

Your argument devolves into calling me names and I'm the imbecile? You should feel sorry for me. I have to be around scary guns, and your country is like the small world ride at DisneyLand. Seriously, I'm sure you are a smart guy, just a little angry, and it is hard for you to see our point of view when you live under completely different circumstances. Can't we all just get a long?

Think about it moron. Someone who needs guns is saying people without guns live in fear.
Think real hard about it till your white trash pea sized brain understands how dumb you nutters are.

tony286 · 02-21-2013, 08:15 AM

All the foundering fathers quotes, they weren't talking about the us gov .They were talking about the British gov. After the American revolution, it wasn't like the British said well you won and off they went. In the battle of 1812,the British burned down the white house.
They depended on state militias to help in the defense.

BlackCrayon · 02-21-2013, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaeger

just read the first post no more,

but its simple, man without his sword, has no freedom.

define sword however you want... point really is without something to protect yourself against an oppressive state or violent people you are not free.

well if you want to use sayings to make an argument..

if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword

the pen is mightier than the sword.

etc, etc.

12clicks · 02-21-2013, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

All the foundering fathers quotes, they weren't talking about the us gov .They were talking about the British gov. After the American revolution, it wasn't like the British said well you won and off they went. In the battle of 1812,the British burned down the white house.
They depended on state militias to help in the defense.

incorrect.

but no surprise coming from you.

dyna mo · 02-21-2013, 09:32 AM

i can *maybe* understand disagreeing with a sc decision, however, i do usually defer to them since interpreting the constitution is their fucking job. nevertheless, i don't get the complete lack of comprehending that decision.

it's all right here in Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

it's a somewhat easy read and defines fucking everything- militia, arms, regulated, right to bear, all of it.

i've posted that before, others have as well, it's been referenced, quoted from, etc., et al, on & on, ad nauseum yet several don't get it. weird.

baddog · 02-21-2013, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

I'm 41 this year, and my life of crime ended when I was 19. Like I said, I don't know how it works over there, but the last 3 times I've been stopped it's because the police 'thought I was going too fast'. I wasn't, any of the times - I accelerate fairly (but not overly) quick from a standing start to the speed limit, at that has been enough to get stopped each time. Even *if* I accelerated hard until I hit the limit, at no time am I ever going any faster than a person driving within the limit, who didn't hit a red light/etc.

You have just defined "exhibition of speed" - At no point do you have to go over the speed limit to be cited for that; and then there is the basic speed law which says you can only drive at whatever speed is safe. If you are doing 25 in a 25 and everyone else is doing 10, you violated it.

MakingItPay · 02-21-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Think about it moron. Someone who needs guns is saying people without guns live in fear.
Think real hard about it till your white trash pea sized brain understands how dumb you nutters are.

Let me make this analogy for you. I don't worry about my house flooding because I have insurance. I don't worry about people coming in my house and shooting me because I have my own "insurance" policy. Why would I be scared? I own weapons and am trained in their use. I am not afraid, I am prepared. You may not recognize the difference. I know you probably think someone would protect you if that happened to you, but here we take responsibility for our own protection. Our cops aren't psychic. They do bring chalk to outline the bodies with though.

_Richard_ · 02-21-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

All the foundering fathers quotes, they weren't talking about the us gov .They were talking about the British gov. After the American revolution, it wasn't like the British said well you won and off they went. In the battle of 1812,the British burned down the white house.
They depended on state militias to help in the defense.

yea that was a war the US started lol

potter · 02-21-2013, 09:39 AM

As soon as you let someone say "The constitution thing is bullshit..." the argument is lost. The constitution grants us inalienable rights. RIGHTS. Guns are not a privilege in this country, they are a right. Period. End of discussion.

baddog · 02-21-2013, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

idiot. I have always said bann all handguns. semi auto and revolvers. revolvers are semi auto.

I like to think you are just trolling. Maybe going for the DVD player?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

All the foundering fathers quotes, they weren't talking about the us gov .They were talking about the British gov. After the American revolution, it wasn't like the British said well you won and off they went. In the battle of 1812,the British burned down the white house.
They depended on state militias to help in the defense.

Where did you study Constitutional Law?

12clicks · 02-21-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i can *maybe* understand disagreeing with a sc decision, however, i do usually defer to them since interpreting the constitution is their fucking job. nevertheless, i don't get the complete lack of comprehending that decision.

it's all right here in Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

it's a somewhat easy read and defines fucking everything- militia, arms, regulated, right to bear, all of it.

i've posted that before, others have as well, it's been referenced, quoted from, etc., et al, on & on, ad nauseum yet several don't get it. weird.

I thought my post was a thread ender. Actually this one is.
oddly enough, the unintelligent rabble continue to prattle on about that which they don't understand.

Bryan G · 02-21-2013, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

Let me make this analogy for you. I don't worry about my house flooding because I have insurance. I don't worry about people coming in my house and shooting me because I have my own "insurance" policy. Why would I be scared? I own weapons and am trained in their use. I am not afraid, I am prepared. You may not recognize the difference. I know you probably think someone would protect you if that happened to you, but here we take responsibility for our own protection. Our cops aren't psychic. They do bring chalk to outline the bodies with though.

He's trying to say he's not scared because the chances of someone robbing his house in holland is slim, same as where I live.

That's all.

Can it happen? Of course but we don't feel we need to own guns to protect ourselves.

Rochard · 02-21-2013, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

a little context for those of you typing when you should be reading.

The United States Supreme Court has defined the Militia in clear and unambiguous terms:

The Militia is all males physically capable of acting for the common defense, expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, arms of the kind in common use at the time, part of the "ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT." U.S. v Miller (1939)

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve Militia... The States cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision (Second Amendment) out of view, prohibit THE PEOPLE from keeping and bearing arms." Presser v Illinois (1886)

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution." - James Madison
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry
"Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Patrick Henry
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." - Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Madison
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples? liberty?s teeth." - George Washington
"When firearms go, all go. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington

uninformed children and politicians are the only types of people who are confused or pretend to be confused by the founding father's intent.

The history of the militia is amazing. At one point in time, the "Second Militia Act of 1792" conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. This was, more or less, a draft, and "able bodied white males" were required to show up with a musket in "six months time".

The militia(s) were established by the Constitution... Which is still in effect.

The Militia Act of 1903 (year?) changed the militia(s) into the National Guard.

02-20-2013, 07:23 PM	#310
Helix Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 5,938	You just don't get it. No reason is required. It's not up for discussion. __________________ Free jscott !!! Free OneHungLo !!! Free Baddog !!!

02-20-2013, 11:16 PM	#320
stinkyfingers Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 657	__________________ how can i help you today ?

02-21-2013, 09:39 AM	#346
potter Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Denver Posts: 6,559	As soon as you let someone say "The constitution thing is bullshit..." the argument is lost. The constitution grants us inalienable rights. RIGHTS. Guns are not a privilege in this country, they are a right. Period. End of discussion. __________________

02-20-2013, 04:50 PM	#301
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	What a shitty life you nutters must have living in such fear.

02-20-2013, 04:52 PM	#302
bl4h Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 1,282	its like a retarded kid calling you stupid for knowing more. its like a homeless person mocking you for having more. this Dirty_F guy lol

02-20-2013, 05:14 PM	#305
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

02-20-2013, 06:06 PM	#306
kyro So Fucking Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 783	welcome back sleazydream

02-20-2013, 07:20 PM	#309
Jaeger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Dark Side of Uranus Posts: 567	just read the first post no more, but its simple, man without his sword, has no freedom. define sword however you want... point really is without something to protect yourself against an oppressive state or violent people you are not free.

02-20-2013, 09:21 PM	#315
CyberHustler So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 25,214

02-21-2013, 12:37 AM	#323
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Semi auto rifles are almost never used in crimes. When is the last time a gas station was robbed with an AK47? I would venture to guess that career criminals don't even want those guns since they can't be concealed. This "assault rifle" debate raging in the US right now is distracting us from the real topic; how to prevent residents of ghettos from getting any kind of gun. If that supply can somehow be cut off, you've just solved the gun problem in America.

02-21-2013, 08:15 AM	#339
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	All the foundering fathers quotes, they weren't talking about the us gov .They were talking about the British gov. After the American revolution, it wasn't like the British said well you won and off they went. In the battle of 1812,the British burned down the white house. They depended on state militias to help in the defense.

02-21-2013, 09:32 AM	#342
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,906	i can maybe understand disagreeing with a sc decision, however, i do usually defer to them since interpreting the constitution is their fucking job. nevertheless, i don't get the complete lack of comprehending that decision. it's all right here in Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html it's a somewhat easy read and defines fucking everything- militia, arms, regulated, right to bear, all of it. i've posted that before, others have as well, it's been referenced, quoted from, etc., et al, on & on, ad nauseum yet several don't get it. weird.