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

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

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 :2 cents:

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.

welcome back sleazydream

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.


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

.

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.

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:

.

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.

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

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.

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.

.

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

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

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.

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. :1orglaugh

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 :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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.

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. :winkwink:

Here is exactly what you said:

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

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.

LOL. That is why your opinion means nothing to us. Sorry. Sounds like I hit a nerve. Don't shoot me! :1orglaugh

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

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."

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.

what you believe is not relevant to the facts.

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? :thumbsup

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.

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.

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.

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.

incorrect.

but no surprise coming from you.

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.

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.

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. :1orglaugh

yea that was a war the US started lol

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.

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

Where did you study Constitutional Law?

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.

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.

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.