9th circuit court of appeals in San Fran rules: No individual right to bear arms. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Just the Village Idiot · 12-07-2002, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

Um. Being born in the US, raised in the US, living in the US for more than 20 years, and going to college in the US might have had something do to with it.

Hmmm -- that's funny....

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

Why does everone think I am English? UK born and raised... and plenty of hot chicks here in England, trust me.

gothweb · 12-07-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot
Funny how you read all of that into this:

Its called context. Necessary for understanding most things. Ever hear of the holism of language and meaning?

gothweb · 12-07-2002, 05:30 PM

Typo. I meant to say "US born and raised". Notice how the quoted text makes a lot more sense if you fix the typo. Sorry about that.

Just the Village Idiot · 12-07-2002, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

Its called context. Necessary for understanding most things. Ever hear of the holism of language and meaning?

unified wholes are greater than the sum of their parts -- blah blah blah.

If your arguements are that the text was written to give a right to bear arms to citizens that oppose a tyrannical government -- the argument could be made that citizens that think the US government is tyrannical and want to change it have the right to own arms.

gothweb · 12-07-2002, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot

unified wholes are greater than the sum of their parts -- blah blah blah.

If your arguements are that the text was written to give a right to bear arms to citizens that oppose a tyrannical government -- the argument could be made that citizens that think the US government is tyrannical and want to change it have the right to own arms.

There is more to linguistic holism than that. What I mean is that language doesn't have the same meaning, or sometimes any, if you take it out of context. Especially archaic language needs to be read with an understanding of the background it was written in.

I can see your point... I do think that if someone has a gun to oppose a tyrranical government, they probably have the right to it (according to the 2nd amendment). However, most people do not have guns for that primary reason-- at most, they add that on as an excuse to get by the 2nd amendment. Most people have guns to do violence to individuals, or to threaten violence to individuals. Those people don't have a constitutional right to their guns.

Just the Village Idiot · 12-07-2002, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

I can see your point... I do think that if someone has a gun to oppose a tyrranical government, they probably have the right to it (according to the 2nd amendment). However, most people do not have guns for that primary reason-- at most, they add that on as an excuse to get by the 2nd amendment. Most people have guns to do violence to individuals, or to threaten violence to individuals. Those people don't have a constitutional right to their guns.

Most people that have guns do violence to individuals or to threated violence???

Post a link that backs that up. A small percentage of the people (i.e. criminals) own guns to perpetrate violence -- but they get all the press.

(could that be due to gun ownership laws and the fact that you can buy a gun illegally on almost any street corner)

No those people shouldn't (although they do) have rights to guns... but law abiding citizens do.

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.... you have to read the context, but militias are now defined as the National Guard or the Army Reserves.

Give me a break!

All the criminals would have to do at that point is call themselves a militia...

Spunkyed · 12-07-2002, 06:14 PM

I'll gladly trade my guns in as long as i never have to pay income tax again. but since that isnt likely to happen, I'll just hang on to them. And i have quite an impressive arsenal, all stored in a vault that would be damn near impossible to crack into.

The gun-haters can lick my ass. I served this country for 7 years, i bought my guns legaly and I'm proud to have my collection.

gothweb · 12-07-2002, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot

Most people that have guns do violence to individuals or to threated violence???

Post a link that backs that up. A small percentage of the people (i.e. criminals) own guns to perpetrate violence -- but they get all the press.

What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast.

Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey.

(could that be due to gun ownership laws and the fact that you can buy a gun illegally on almost any street corner)

No those people shouldn't (although they do) have rights to guns... but law abiding citizens do.

The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed?

You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.... you have to read the context, but militias are now defined as the National Guard or the Army Reserves.

Give me a break!

Where did I redefine "militia"?

All the criminals would have to do at that point is call themselves a militia...

No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects.

theking · 12-07-2002, 06:21 PM

"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."

The statement is ambiguous at best. Since it is among the Bill of Rights any ambiguity should favor the right of the people. Thus "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." should be applicable and should remain so until the Congress is willing to amend or append the Second Amendment. As for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that it makes controversial rulings for the purpose of having the Federal Supreme Court provide clairification and not because they are a fringe court, with liberal or conservative leanings. My

Just the Village Idiot · 12-07-2002, 06:34 PM

"What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast.

Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey."

Why are we talking about guns when I have the right to bear arms??? That would include nukes.... why not bitch about that???

Guns are for killing??? Thanks genious.... I thought they were for playing patty cake.

"The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed?"

I can tell by the second ammendment.

We already established the fact that guns are for killing....

Oh trust me I'm ready to do the deed.... if threatened and defending myself, my family, or my property.

"Where did I redefine "militia"?"

You didn't and I didn't explicity refer to you.

"No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects."

Ah the good old judicial system.... maybe they should stop trying to regulate from the bench and do their jobs.

They are biased and the very definition of militia goes to organizations created by private citizens,

You could easily call the people in Waco a militia... what happened to them???

Government of the people, by the people, for the people.... what a fucking joke...

gothweb · 12-07-2002, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
"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."

The statement is ambiguous at best. Since it is among the Bill of Rights any ambiguity should favor the right of the people. Thus "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." should be applicable and should remain so until the Congress is willing to amend or append the Second Amendment. As for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that it makes controversial rulings for the purpose of having the Federal Supreme Court provide clairification and not because they are a fringe court, with liberal or conservative leanings. My

The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution. It is not necessary to wait for congress to make further ammendments. Also, who says how ambiguity should be treated? You seem to take it for granted that "the people" (the ones who want guns) should get the trump, but again I point you to the powers of the Supreme Court.

theking · 12-07-2002, 06:35 PM

By the way I would not peacefully give up my guns which I currently legally own. Any attempt to disarm this law abiding citizen would quickly change that status.

theking · 12-07-2002, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution. It is not necessary to wait for congress to make further ammendments. Also, who says how ambiguity should be treated? You seem to take it for granted that "the people" (the ones who want guns) should get the trump, but again I point you to the powers of the Supreme Court.

I understand that the Federal Supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution, and I will further point out that "the people" have had the right to have arms since the very beginning of our government which to me speaks volumns about the Sumpreme Court and its interpretation of the constitution and the meaning of the Second Admendment.

theking · 12-07-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

The supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution. It is not necessary to wait for congress to make further ammendments. Also, who says how ambiguity should be treated? You seem to take it for granted that "the people" (the ones who want guns) should get the trump, but again I point you to the powers of the Supreme Court.

And yes I believe as I stated, since the Second Admendment is listed among the Bill of Rights, which is about the rights of the people, the ambiguity should favor the rights of the people.

Mr.Fiction · 12-07-2002, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
"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."

The statement is ambiguous at best. Since it is among the Bill of Rights any ambiguity should favor the right of the people. Thus "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." should be applicable and should remain so until the Congress is willing to amend or append the Second Amendment. As for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that it makes controversial rulings for the purpose of having the Federal Supreme Court provide clairification and not because they are a fringe court, with liberal or conservative leanings. My

Interesting theory. So, you think they make certain plausible rulings so that the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on ambiguous constitutional issues that they might not otherwise ever take on? It is possible, I guess.

Kiko_Wu · 12-07-2002, 07:13 PM

I really don't care what guys 200 years ago had to say about it. Trust me would you want our industry to be governed by what that bunch would have thought of porn? They thought all sorts of stupid things were a good idea.

I don't own a gun to overthrow the government, I own a gun because it is a tool. You own a hammer if you might need to drive some nails, you own a gun in case you need to kill someone. You don't shoot guns out of hands, you don't wing them, you don't try and scare them. You try to make a hole in the center of their torso, then at the bridge of their nose. You only use it if you intend to use deadly force and understand the consequences- PERIOD. That doesn't mean I WILL- just that I have the capacity. I am a very small women, almost any grown man could kill me very easily with his bare hands- that doesn't mean he will just that he has the capacity. If he has that capacity why should the government keep me from having the same? Particularly given my age and gender I am far, far more likely to show restraint with the use of deadly force.

I don't give a rats ass about a militia, I have the right to maintain the capacity for self defense with the tool statistically most suited for the job. There are two things that will keep you alive if someone really wants to harm you- fear, and a gun. If your afraid your careful, if your careful chances are you will never need the gun.

UnseenWorld · 12-07-2002, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kiko_Wu
I really don't care what guys 200 years ago had to say about it. Trust me would you want our industry to be governed by what that bunch would have thought of porn? They thought all sorts of stupid things were a good idea.

They were a bunch of amoral businessmen, so greedy they bought human beings from across the ocean and worked them to death, breaking up their families, and doing whatever it took to break their spirits. Except for the ones they wanted to fuck, of course.

Before we get too teary-eyed over them, let's not forget what slavery did to the labor market of WHITE people, too. It's hard to land a low-end job when there is a whole class of people doing that work who aren't even paid!

Pardon me, but I'm not going to look up to those guys for guidance.

Just the Village Idiot · 12-07-2002, 08:23 PM

LMAO!!!

Only UW would try to bring slavery into a discussion about the right to own guns...

Evil1 · 12-07-2002, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb
[B]Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot

An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey.

ACtually it doesnt, its quite effective for killing turkeys, it's a gun, it shoots a bullet, seeing as you cant buy it full auto the only thing that differenciates it from a hunting gun is it's looks.. the same with every other "assault rifle"

I love morons who think if you put a pistol grip on something it shoots faster and more powerful bullets... stupid people fucking rock.

Evil1 · 12-07-2002, 08:37 PM

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=keep

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bear

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shall

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=not

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infringed

Whats so fucking confusing?

PornoDoggy · 12-07-2002, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb
Many of the Bill of Rights are there to make what the British forces were doing illegal. They were, in part, a politcal maneuvre to held justify the war of independence. As such, not all of them are about individual rights, and all are about what the government can and cannot do.

Uh ... while I agree with your sentiments about the 2nd Ammendment, this is dead wrong. The 2nd Ammendment was written in the 1790s ... the Revolution was over, the war had been won, and the British had nothing to do with this discussion. It was the fear of federalism that caused this and the other ammendments included in the Bill of Rights to be enacted.

UnseenWorld · 12-07-2002, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil1
I love morons who think if you put a pistol grip on something it shoots faster and more powerful bullets... stupid people fucking rock.

I suppose these are the same sort of people who wear team shirts or Air Jordan shoes when they aren't athletes, who drive cars with spoilers on the rear that are totally non-functional at any speed the car can actually go. The same people who wear baggy pants low or baseball hats backward because their friends or their music idols do. The same people who want a pit bull or rottweiler because they don't feel tough without one. (Come to think of it, I suppose a lot of weapon owners fall into a similar category.)

lawpal · 12-07-2002, 11:13 PM

once again the 9th circuit has demonstrated that it is totally out of touch with how the nation lives in todays reality

Sly_RJ · 12-07-2002, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

They were a bunch of amoral businessmen, so greedy they bought human beings from across the ocean and worked them to death, breaking up their families, and doing whatever it took to break their spirits. Except for the ones they wanted to fuck, of course.

Before we get too teary-eyed over them, let's not forget what slavery did to the labor market of WHITE people, too. It's hard to land a low-end job when there is a whole class of people doing that work who aren't even paid!

Pardon me, but I'm not going to look up to those guys for guidance.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Your statement above is weak, that is, if we were even talking about slavery!

Guns, guns, guns. This thread is about guns!

Evil1 · 12-08-2002, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

I suppose these are the same sort of people who wear team shirts or Air Jordan shoes when they aren't athletes, who drive cars with spoilers on the rear that are totally non-functional at any speed the car can actually go. The same people who wear baggy pants low or baseball hats backward because their friends or their music idols do. The same people who want a pit bull or rottweiler because they don't feel tough without one. (Come to think of it, I suppose a lot of weapon owners fall into a similar category.)

What in the fuck...? Go hug a tree.. Your one of those pacifists arent ya... if you come home to your wife getting raped you'd run down the stairs crying and go hide in the closet until the mean guy goes away.. right?

(heres where UnseenWorld replies "no I'd kick his ass")

Great idea but.. Wrong.. he's got an illegal gun.. your now dead.

(heres where UnseenWorld replies "oh yeah.. whats the chance of that")

Not much, but is it impossible... far from it.. in the end, you'd be dead, I'd be prepared and have a confirmed kill.

Enjoy your life as nothing more then a helpless target shithead.

UnseenWorld · 12-08-2002, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil1

What in the fuck...? Go hug a tree.. Your one of those pacifists arent ya... if you come home to your wife getting raped you'd run down the stairs crying and go hide in the closet until the mean guy goes away.. right?

(heres where UnseenWorld replies "no I'd kick his ass")

Great idea but.. Wrong.. he's got an illegal gun.. your now dead.

(heres where UnseenWorld replies "oh yeah.. whats the chance of that")

Not much, but is it impossible... far from it.. in the end, you'd be dead, I'd be prepared and have a confirmed kill.
Enjoy your life as nothing more then a helpless target shithead.

What in the fuck...? Go hug a a gun. Your one of those gun lovers arent ya... if you come home to your kid shot in the head from playing with a gun (maybe not your gun, but one the idiot neighbor left laying around) you'd run down the stairs crying "It was worth it to protect the 2nd Amendment!"

(heres where Evil1 replies "no I'd kick myself for putting off sending him to that safe gun handling class")

Great idea but your kid is now dead.

(heres where Evil1 replies "oh yeah...what was the chance of that?")

Not much, but is it impossible?... far from it.. in the end, he'd be dead while mine would be alive.

Enjoy your life as nothing more then a shithead and a helpless target of superior reasoning.

Okay, parody aside, your argument is that it's possible I might need a gun and then, idiot that I am, I won't have one. Well, I might need a bilge pump, too, but I don't have one. Do you? And then the situation arises where your basement is flooded (or your bilge) and you are up a well-known tributary with no mode of locomotion.

Quite frankly, you probably MIGHT need lots of life saving things even more than a gun, but I bet you don't have them. More people are killed by heart attacks each year than by criminals with guns, but I bet you don't have a home defibrilator, do you? Anaphylactic shock from bee stings or spider bites, food allergies, and so forth also kill more people than criminals with guns, but I bet you aren't prepared for that eventuality, either. Still, by golly, you've got your gun and if that criminal shows up, THAT is the situation it's most important to be ready for.

Why?

theking · 12-08-2002, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

What in the fuck...? Go hug a a gun. Your one of those gun lovers arent ya... if you come home to your kid shot in the head from playing with a gun (maybe not your gun, but one the idiot neighbor left laying around) you'd run down the stairs crying "It was worth it to protect the 2nd Amendment!"

(heres where Evil1 replies "no I'd kick myself for putting off sending him to that safe gun handling class")

Great idea but your kid is now dead.

(heres where Evil1 replies "oh yeah...what was the chance of that?")

Not much, but is it impossible?... far from it.. in the end, he'd be dead while mine would be alive.

Enjoy your life as nothing more then a shithead and a helpless target of superior reasoning.

Okay, parody aside, your argument is that it's possible I might need a gun and then, idiot that I am, I won't have one. Well, I might need a bilge pump, too, but I don't have one. Do you? And then the situation arises where your basement is flooded (or your bilge) and you are up a well-known tributary with no mode of locomotion.

Quite frankly, you probably MIGHT need lots of life saving things even more than a gun, but I bet you don't have them. More people are killed by heart attacks each year than by criminals with guns, but I bet you don't have a home defibrilator, do you? Anaphylactic shock from bee stings or spider bites, food allergies, and so forth also kill more people than criminals with guns, but I bet you aren't prepared for that eventuality, either. Still, by golly, you've got your gun and if that criminal shows up, THAT is the situation it's most important to be ready for.

Why?

Bees are necessary to nature. I like bees. Criminals are not necessary. I don't like criminals. That is why.

Kimmykim · 12-08-2002, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo
Leave it to the 9th, to stir the shit pot...

Yep, thats what they did years ago when they upheld your right to be a smut peddler too lol

UnseenWorld · 12-08-2002, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Bees are necessary to nature. I like bees. Criminals are not necessary. I don't like criminals. That is why.

Cute, but a child killed by a be or a peanut is just as dead as one killed by a criminal.

gothweb · 12-08-2002, 07:36 AM

To all the right-wing nuts bitching about the mean liberals... YOU'RE FUCKING PORN PEDDLERS! If you don't like all the stinky liberals where you are, try living someplace conservative. I'd love to see your faces going to jail for violating obscenity laws.

12clicks · 12-08-2002, 12:22 PM

to all of you dopes who thin the 2nd amendment gives *states* rights. could you please back that up with ANY type of proof?

You liberal kids don't have a clue. keep on dodging the fact that the bill of rights are rights guaranteed to the people. not the government, not the states, and not the militia.

The states don't have the right of free speech, the states don't have the protection against unreasonable searches, etc. etc.
you kids may not *Like* the 2nd amendment but pretending its something it isn't just makes you look like a light wieght.

Pleasurepays · 12-08-2002, 12:44 PM

"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."

i think its a little interesting how people are so willing to play semantics while ignoring the time, the context and the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

it was not written to give Inbred Jed an assault rifle with amour piercing bullets to go coon huntin from his cabin in UncleDad, Kentucky.

it was written with the intent of guaranteeing people the right to protect themselves because there was not an adequate military/police force to do so.

I dont think it can be successfully argued today, that Jed represents a "well organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

12clicks · 12-08-2002, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays
"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."

i think its a little interesting how people are so willing to play semantics while ignoring the time, the context and the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

it was not written to give Inbred Jed an assault rifle with amour piercing bullets to go coon huntin from his cabin in UncleDad, Kentucky.

it was written with the intent of guaranteeing people the right to protect themselves because there was not an adequate military/police force to do so.

I dont think it can be successfully argued today, that Jed represents a "well organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

Funny how the liberal wants to pretend that all the gun owners in america are "jeds"

Do you also think jed should have free speech? after all, there's no need for it today.

Back up your argument with something more than "jed"

Pleasurepays · 12-08-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

Funny how the liberal wants to pretend that all the gun owners in america are "jeds"

Do you also think jed should have free speech? after all, there's no need for it today.

Back up your argument with something more than "jed"

uhm.....

1) i would hardly consider myself to be Liberal.
2) i apologize to all members of your family, both male and female named "Jed"

Mr.Fiction · 12-08-2002, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

Yep, thats what they did years ago when they upheld your right to be a smut peddler too lol

Thank you, KK.

12clicks · 12-08-2002, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

uhm.....

1) i would hardly consider myself to be Liberal.
2) i apologize to all members of your family, both male and female named "Jed"

um yeah, so much for any facts coming from you.

Pleasurepays · 12-08-2002, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

um yeah, so much for any facts coming from you.

what role do "facts" play?

There are no facts. its only about interpretation, precedence, opinion and legal opinion. the Amendment itself is vague and ambiguous at best. if there were not a fact, this conversation would not happen and the 9th Circuit Court would not be working towards yet another ruling that will be overturned and laughed at by the free world.

I am sure you have a real great handle on the Constitution of The United States as well as a legal precedence that has been set on this issue and are more than qualified to spend days on end presenting your "facts" to counter my "facts" in some bizzare circle jerk-like contest of wills.

i however, am not. Unlike you, i dont have the time to spend the entire day here masturbating my keyboard, to both fill my time and help me to console myself in the otherwise emptyness of my existence, by creating a false sense of purpose in my miserable life.

12clicks · 12-08-2002, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

what role do "facts" play?

that about sums up your argument alright.

Fact: the bill of rights was written toguarantee rights to individuals. Not states, governments or militia.

(look it up squirrelly)

Gutterboy · 12-08-2002, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
to all of you dopes who thin the 2nd amendment gives *states* rights. could you please back that up with ANY type of proof?

Isn't it obvious? The bill of rights grants the right to well regulated militia. At the time, militas were organized, regulated and trained by the State.

Quote:

Fact: the bill of rights was written toguarantee rights to individuals. Not states, governments or militia.

Its not a fact. Its a personal opinion that you hope people will accept as a fact if you only repeat it like it was true enough times. Again, that is exactly what you whine about liberals doing.

In reality both sides are interpreting the document. It not a matter of fact finding, its a matter of historical context.

The Bill of Rights is not entitled "The Bill of Personal, Individual, Non-States Rights", no matter how much you want it to be.

Gutterboy · 12-08-2002, 05:30 PM

Come to think of it, something else none of you Constitutional geniuses seem to understand is this: The fact the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to own weaponry does not mean that all guns should be, or would be, banned.

The Constitution doesn't explicity give you the right to own an automobile, but no one is going to take away your cars.

If you want to win the argument for legal gun ownership, you'll have to do it with reasoning and statistics which show that private gun ownership is.. in the balance of things.. beneficial to society. When you try to win by spouting off ill concieved opinions about the Constitution like they were immutable laws of the universe, you just make yourselves look like asses. In fact, trying to win using those tactics just makes you look like you're doing it because you can't produce a reasonable argument that private gun ownership is beneficial to modern society.

I don't think all guns should be banned, but I'm not going to try and justify my opinions by pretending this or that old document gives me an immutable, god given right to arm myself to the teeth.

Just the Village Idiot · 12-08-2002, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
to all of you dopes who thin the 2nd amendment gives *states* rights. could you please back that up with ANY type of proof?

Reading comprehension goes a long way.

The only thing that was said was that if the second amendment didn't give the right for individual citizens to bear arms (as was ruled by the 9th) then that was a power relegated to the states.

Ever read the 10th amendment???

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

How's that for proof???

Evil1 · 12-08-2002, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld
What in the fuck...? Go hug a a gun. Your one of those gun lovers arent ya... if you come home to your kid shot in the head from playing with a gun (maybe not your gun, but one the idiot neighbor left laying around) you'd run down the stairs crying "It was worth it to protect the 2nd Amendment!"

My 9mm is too small to hug
Yes I am
More kids drown in pools, lets ban them first
and your last point is totally irrelevant, I didn't realize we could just rewrite things like this, so why have freedom of speech.. people say mean things.. lets ban that too...

What puts you in the position to tell people what they can/can't do can/can't own? Ever consider moving to china? you may like it there.

Okay, parody aside, your argument is that it's possible I might need a gun and then, idiot that I am, I won't have one. Well, I might need a bilge pump, too, but I don't have one. Do you? And then the situation arises where your basement is flooded (or your bilge) and you are up a well-known tributary with no mode of locomotion.
Actually, i doQuite frankly, you probably MIGHT need lots of life saving things even more than a gun, but I bet you don't have them. More people are killed by heart attacks each year than by criminals with guns, but I bet you don't have a home defibrilator, do you? Anaphylactic shock from bee stings or spider bites, food allergies, and so forth also kill more people than criminals with guns, but I bet you aren't prepared for that eventuality, either. Still, by golly, you've got your gun and if that criminal shows up, THAT is the situation it's most important to be ready for.

Why?

If I die of something natural.. whatever, but theres no need to die cause some fuckbag decides you should.

gothweb · 12-08-2002, 07:48 PM

What kind of person needs a killing device in order to live his life the way he wants to? And what kind of person thinks that their right to be able to kill is more important than the rights of others not to die. For me, in the end, that is why I think gun rights are stupid.

Just the Village Idiot · 12-08-2002, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

What kind of person needs a killing device in order to live his life the way he wants to?

One that want's to prevent criminals who can by guns on every fucking street corner from killing them.

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

And what kind of person thinks that their right to be able to kill is more important than the rights of others not to die.

[/B]

A criminal.

Quote:

Originally posted by gothweb

For me, in the end, that is why I think gun rights are stupid. [/B]

Heh....

Just the Village Idiot · 12-08-2002, 08:39 PM

... and I can't wait for someone to argue the 10th admendment.

Pleasurepays · 12-09-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

that about sums up your argument alright.
Fact: the bill of rights was written toguarantee rights to individuals. Not states, governments or militia.
(look it up squirrelly)

*sigh*

you made an assumption that i am really liberal and attacking right wing gun nuts. in fact, i am really very in the middle, come from a family of professional guides in Alaska and have owned more rifles, pistols and assualt rifles than most people on this board put together.

i dont think that the 2nd Amendment grants me the right to do anything except Join a militia (as defined by US Law) and own a weapon that is directly related to that specific need.

fact:

the 2nd Amendment uses the word "right"

fact:

NRA and similar wackos maintain that the 2nd Amendment grants them this "right to bear arms" and repeadly misquote the 2nd Amendment by leaving out the words "well regulated militia"

fact:

"Militia" is defined in US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, Section 311"

there are two types of militias. "organized" where specifically is mentioned, the National Guard and Naval Militia and unorganized militias which is everyone not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia

to say that "Jed" has the right to his assault rifle on the basis that the 2nd Amendment gives him that right... then you have to successfully argue that 2 coon dogs and his sister/wife compose an "organized militia" as defined by the US Government.

the 2nd Amendment does not say anything in there about your right to be a jerk off radical, with assault weapons and amour piercing bullets stashed under your floor in your little cabin in Northern Idaho because you are afraid of your own government. in fact, it does not mention your right to own amour piercing bullets, tanks, fighter planes, nuclear weapons or ICBM's.

the only test i am aware of as far as what weapon "may be" protected came with the case Miller vs United States where the judge decided that the gun he had (a sawed off shotgun) had no legitimate use in a militia and therefore was not in fact protected by the 2nd Amendment

12-07-2002, 05:30 PM	#53
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	Typo. I meant to say "US born and raised". Notice how the quoted text makes a lot more sense if you fix the typo. Sorry about that. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best.

12-07-2002, 06:15 PM	#58
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot Most people that have guns do violence to individuals or to threated violence??? Post a link that backs that up. A small percentage of the people (i.e. criminals) own guns to perpetrate violence -- but they get all the press. What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast. Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey. (could that be due to gun ownership laws and the fact that you can buy a gun illegally on almost any street corner) No those people shouldn't (although they do) have rights to guns... but law abiding citizens do. The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed? You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.... you have to read the context, but militias are now defined as the National Guard or the Army Reserves. Give me a break! Where did I redefine "militia"? All the criminals would have to do at that point is call themselves a militia... No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best. Last edited by gothweb; 12-07-2002 at 06:17 PM..

12-07-2002, 06:21 PM	#59
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	"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." The statement is ambiguous at best. Since it is among the Bill of Rights any ambiguity should favor the right of the people. Thus "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." should be applicable and should remain so until the Congress is willing to amend or append the Second Amendment. As for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that it makes controversial rulings for the purpose of having the Federal Supreme Court provide clairification and not because they are a fringe court, with liberal or conservative leanings. My __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

12-07-2002, 06:34 PM	#60
Just the Village Idiot Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 581	"What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast. Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey." Why are we talking about guns when I have the right to bear arms??? That would include nukes.... why not bitch about that??? Guns are for killing??? Thanks genious.... I thought they were for playing patty cake. "The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed?" I can tell by the second ammendment. We already established the fact that guns are for killing.... Oh trust me I'm ready to do the deed.... if threatened and defending myself, my family, or my property. "Where did I redefine "militia"?" You didn't and I didn't explicity refer to you. "No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects." Ah the good old judicial system.... maybe they should stop trying to regulate from the bench and do their jobs. They are biased and the very definition of militia goes to organizations created by private citizens, You could easily call the people in Waco a militia... what happened to them??? Government of the people, by the people, for the people.... what a fucking joke... __________________ <a href="http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=921196-0000&PA=337888&HTML=http://www.wow18cash.com/"> We may as well just give this fucking $$$ away!</a>

12-07-2002, 06:35 PM	#62
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	By the way I would not peacefully give up my guns which I currently legally own. Any attempt to disarm this law abiding citizen would quickly change that status. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

12-07-2002, 06:14 PM	#57
Spunkyed So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Tyler, Tx Posts: 290	I'll gladly trade my guns in as long as i never have to pay income tax again. but since that isnt likely to happen, I'll just hang on to them. And i have quite an impressive arsenal, all stored in a vault that would be damn near impossible to crack into. The gun-haters can lick my ass. I served this country for 7 years, i bought my guns legaly and I'm proud to have my collection.

12-07-2002, 07:13 PM	#66
Kiko_Wu Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 182	I really don't care what guys 200 years ago had to say about it. Trust me would you want our industry to be governed by what that bunch would have thought of porn? They thought all sorts of stupid things were a good idea. I don't own a gun to overthrow the government, I own a gun because it is a tool. You own a hammer if you might need to drive some nails, you own a gun in case you need to kill someone. You don't shoot guns out of hands, you don't wing them, you don't try and scare them. You try to make a hole in the center of their torso, then at the bridge of their nose. You only use it if you intend to use deadly force and understand the consequences- PERIOD. That doesn't mean I WILL- just that I have the capacity. I am a very small women, almost any grown man could kill me very easily with his bare hands- that doesn't mean he will just that he has the capacity. If he has that capacity why should the government keep me from having the same? Particularly given my age and gender I am far, far more likely to show restraint with the use of deadly force. I don't give a rats ass about a militia, I have the right to maintain the capacity for self defense with the tool statistically most suited for the job. There are two things that will keep you alive if someone really wants to harm you- fear, and a gun. If your afraid your careful, if your careful chances are you will never need the gun. __________________ Chinatown Girls 60/60 partnership program with FREE exclusive promotional content SexWaldo, The Web's First Interactive Sex Machine

12-07-2002, 08:23 PM	#68
Just the Village Idiot Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 581	LMAO!!! Only UW would try to bring slavery into a discussion about the right to own guns... __________________ <a href="http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=921196-0000&PA=337888&HTML=http://www.wow18cash.com/"> We may as well just give this fucking $$$ away!</a>

12-07-2002, 08:37 PM	#70
Evil1 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 3,893	"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=keep http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bear http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shall http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=not http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infringed Whats so fucking confusing? __________________

12-07-2002, 11:13 PM	#73
lawpal Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Miami Posts: 824	once again the 9th circuit has demonstrated that it is totally out of touch with how the nation lives in todays reality

12-08-2002, 07:36 AM	#80
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	To all the right-wing nuts bitching about the mean liberals... YOU'RE FUCKING PORN PEDDLERS! If you don't like all the stinky liberals where you are, try living someplace conservative. I'd love to see your faces going to jail for violating obscenity laws. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best.

12-08-2002, 12:22 PM	#81
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,789	to all of you dopes who thin the 2nd amendment gives states rights. could you please back that up with ANY type of proof? You liberal kids don't have a clue. keep on dodging the fact that the bill of rights are rights guaranteed to the people. not the government, not the states, and not the militia. The states don't have the right of free speech, the states don't have the protection against unreasonable searches, etc. etc. you kids may not Like the 2nd amendment but pretending its something it isn't just makes you look like a light wieght. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

12-08-2002, 12:44 PM	#82
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	"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." i think its a little interesting how people are so willing to play semantics while ignoring the time, the context and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. it was not written to give Inbred Jed an assault rifle with amour piercing bullets to go coon huntin from his cabin in UncleDad, Kentucky. it was written with the intent of guaranteeing people the right to protect themselves because there was not an adequate military/police force to do so. I dont think it can be successfully argued today, that Jed represents a "well organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

12-08-2002, 05:30 PM	#90
Gutterboy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dis Posts: 4,751	Come to think of it, something else none of you Constitutional geniuses seem to understand is this: The fact the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to own weaponry does not mean that all guns should be, or would be, banned. The Constitution doesn't explicity give you the right to own an automobile, but no one is going to take away your cars. If you want to win the argument for legal gun ownership, you'll have to do it with reasoning and statistics which show that private gun ownership is.. in the balance of things.. beneficial to society. When you try to win by spouting off ill concieved opinions about the Constitution like they were immutable laws of the universe, you just make yourselves look like asses. In fact, trying to win using those tactics just makes you look like you're doing it because you can't produce a reasonable argument that private gun ownership is beneficial to modern society. I don't think all guns should be banned, but I'm not going to try and justify my opinions by pretending this or that old document gives me an immutable, god given right to arm myself to the teeth. Last edited by Gutterboy; 12-08-2002 at 05:33 PM..

12-08-2002, 07:48 PM	#93
gothweb Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Back in the USSA Posts: 8,849	What kind of person needs a killing device in order to live his life the way he wants to? And what kind of person thinks that their right to be able to kill is more important than the rights of others not to die. For me, in the end, that is why I think gun rights are stupid. __________________ Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes. Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money. MojoHost: Still the best.

12-08-2002, 08:39 PM	#95
Just the Village Idiot Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 581	... and I can't wait for someone to argue the 10th admendment. __________________ <a href="http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=921196-0000&PA=337888&HTML=http://www.wow18cash.com/"> We may as well just give this fucking $$$ away!</a>