The Future of Gun Control with Cody Wilson

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

tothetenthpower

beezzer

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth


Please point out where "laptop" is used in relation to the 1st Amendment.

QED


Straw man argument.

The 1st amendment is an entirely different issue and does not involve things that KILL YOU in the run of a day. Please choose a proper example to contrast.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


Very obtuse and disengenuous reply. The point is a good one, same document, similar right.

The only straw man is your own. By your definition the only arms we could bear would be broken flintlocks (since those were of the time the constitution was written and they cannot kill people). Guns other than automatic weapons and grenade launchers also kill people. Arms are expressly allowed by the 2nd amendment. Period. This BS of "interpretation" is just that, BS. Either you agree with the right as written, or you put together an amendment and get it passed.

Regarding your point about grenade launchers and automatic weapons: The same document (Constitution) also provides a procedure for changing the Constitution. If a change is needed to update the document to reflect the times an amendment is called for.

Never, ever should we allow politicians or judges to interpret (legislate) an interpretation of rights as an "update". Either the constitution stands on it's own, as is, as written, or it is not worth the paper it is written on. PERIOD.

edit on 7-3-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


And my argument is that you've all proven that you should not be entitled to such rights, since you squander and misuse them, pretty much every chance you get.

Sorry for all the good gun owners out there, but it's just not necessary.

I see no need to have an Ar-15 for 'civilian' purposes. Other than collecting or sport shooting.

Any other reason to own one, is just plain stupid.

But it's ok, I see you don't wish to actually engage me in conversation.

~Tenth
edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


A gun is a tool. A hammer is a tool. You can do a lot with a hammer, but you cannot build a house unless you have more tools than just a hammer.

A shotgun is for bird hunting and also happens to be great for home defense. But you can't stuff it into a holster and hide it while walking down the street.

A rifle is for long range hunting.

A handgun is for concealing and close quarters combat.

An AR-15 is a rifle. It's caliber is perfect for varmints. The fact that it looks scary is why people use it's nomenclature in a discussion. That, and they are usually a bit uneducated. It's just a rifle.

A remington .308 bolt action will do MUCH more damage at long range. Perhaps that is the weapon that should be feared the most.


The point being, a gun is a gun. Different types are for different things. But they are all just guns.

An expert marksman can do more damage with a flintlock .50 caliber revolutionary war rifle than an idiot could do with an AR-15.

Oh, and let me know where I can get some grenades for my M-203. I'd love to be able to take out tanks at 200 yards.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I wonder if those who want the 2nd Amendment gone, or rewritten, so only the government and those in power have access to them, want their 4th Amendment treated the same way? I bet they don't.

Imagine, if it weren't for GUNS and the 2nd Amendment when our founding fathers created this great land, you wouldn't have a constitution, let alone rights, or a podium to spew your stupidity.

So to all you anti-gunners, should the government be able to walk in your front door without a warrant? Should they be able to search you in the street by simply saying, HEY YOU, get over here? The reason they cannot, is because the men responsible for this country knew, THE PEOPLE need to have equal to or better means to defend themselves just as we did, or all of this work we did, and all of this blood spilled, will be for nothing.

Also, I don't see many people LEAVING America, but many want to come live here. Why do you think that is? Our guns are a part of who we are, have been since our inception, yet people know this and come anyway. Why? Why do anti-gunners and morons looking to disarm their fellow man stay in a country with so many guns? Why do anti-gunners mention the UK and Australia so much in their debates, but not one of them has packed up and moved to those gun free nations?

The writing is on the wall. Because of our guns you have the life you do, but since your not willing to give that up, why the FBOMB would you ask us to give up what got us here?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

bbracken677

Arms are expressly allowed by the 2nd amendment. Period. This BS of "interpretation" is just that, BS. Either you agree with the right as written, or you put together an amendment and get it passed.


I really wish pro-gunners would stop implying that a Constitutional Amendment could dissolve the right to be armed or that the 2nd Amendment grants this right. Neither are true.

The right to defend one's self is a god-give, natural right. The 2nd A simply states, 'this right already exists and government cannot change/restrict/infringe upon it.' That's all it does. It puts no stipulations on it. There are no qualifications. Only a reason to reinforce it. At one point the Founders even questioned the need to add this amendment, thinking it beyond obviousness to even have to state it. But, they realized (after quite a bit of pressure from the states) some assholes 20 or 200 years from now will try to claim this right no longer valid & try to mess with it. Well, they, yet again, were right.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mal1970
 


Damn straight.

I've been saying for years now that harping on the 2nd as a reason why or why not is holding back real liberty.

Same goes for the totality of the bill of rights.

My liberty, your liberty, the liberty of everyone on this planet is not and should not ever be tied to some words on a piece of paper.

It's that faith and power people are putting into documents and words that belittle liberty. Turns it into something that can be controlled by other men and governments.

The only things that are real are you exercising your natural liberty and them coming in with brute force and threats of death to punish you for exercising your natural liberty.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

morder1
I think I remember reading somewhere before...

Laws are made by stupid people, who are not smart enough to figure out a real solution to the problem.


Laws are made by people smart enough to realize how they can profit from a problem but act dumb enough for the public to accept them as genuine.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mal1970
 


Can you imagine where we would be right now if it HADN'T been codified???? I don't even want to think about it considering how far we've fallen with it written in plain English that it is not to be infringed....

JADen



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mal1970
 


Do you really believe it is that simple? Do you really believe that the govt would not rid us of weapons if they could? Try taking a god-given right into a courtroom without law to back it up and see how far it gets you.

Unless you are talking about keeping weapons illegally and being subject to being hauled off if discovered...something I would prefer to avoid by way of forcing the constitutional issue.

If there is no law guaranteeing a right, then you have no right no matter what you exclaim. To claim otherwise is to deny how the world works.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Those same courts are used to reinterpret, misinterpret, justify and otherwise legitimize oppression and tyranny.

Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. Human beings were legally 3/5ths a person.

Courts give tyrants a safe way to impose their will.

What should have happened is when some guy walks up to you and says "stop harming no one and no thing and bend to my will" is that guy catches a bullet in his face and anyone else with grand ideas of controlling their fellow man decides it isnt worth the effort and you get left alone to continue your radical life of not harming anyone or any thing.

The "system" such as it is makes tyranny as easy as signing a law and repeal of that tyranny drags out for decades or generations if it ever arrives at all.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Masterjaden
reply to post by mal1970
 


Can you imagine where we would be right now if it HADN'T been codified???? I don't even want to think about it considering how far we've fallen with it written in plain English that it is not to be infringed....

JADen


Yeah, if it weren't for the 2nd Amendment, USA would be like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and other god awful countries without gun.




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


And we don't want to be like them. Only Progressives wish to change us into other countries.

Why not move there, instead of forcing people here to your ideals?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Probably more like north korea.

Destroying a tank from 200 yards with an m203? Good luck. Abrahams tanks can withstand direct hits from other tanks. All you would do is attract its attention. You'd be French frying when you should've pizzad.
edit on 7-3-2014 by Bundy because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-3-2014 by Bundy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth


They intended for us to be equally armed against possible tyranny my friend. So we could go so far as to say that we should be able to own even more lethal weapons, but I don't believe that most reasonable people are demanding that. The problem is Tenth, is that once you give these control freaks an inch, they will always take a mile bro.

Plus, why does the fact that the criminals will have them either way always ignored? Look at narcotics, they are illegal, but they are everywhere. If someone wants a gun, legal or illegal, they will always be able to get one here in The USA. ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Notheycant
To all who are complaining about how I held the gun in the intro, do you also comment on movie threads about how irresponsible the actors handled their weapons in movies? If not, the "I shot Marvin in the face" scene from PULP FICTION is a good place to start.

How do you know I didn't triple check my weapon before we filmed the segment? Moreover, you'll notice I handled the gun appropriately when I actually fired it in the field.

Still, feel free to harp on that or weigh in on the actual subject matter of the video.

-

Josh


thanks for the permission ....

yeah dood ....you were mishandling the weapon like a mofo
and it is not doing us owners any good nor giving your vid much credit


your right I don't know that you triple checked it
because I didn't witness you doing it
so airing on the side of caution, I'm assuming its loaded
I almost half expected you to scratch your head
with the business end


I also stopped watching
after you muzzled the camera man & the goat


those are some sweet
Hollywood shooting pants
by the way



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 



There is no such thing as entitlement to rights. Rights are unalienable. You do not EARN them, they are not GRANTED to you by government.


NOW THAT"S JUST SILLY.

The 'rights' afforded to you by the constitution, were made up and given to you, by men. Not gods, not anybody, but MEN.

There is NO SUCH THING as an UNALIENABLE RIGHT. Those are myths. Those in power, control what you rights are at any given moment.

Regardless of what some piece of paper may say, or even what the law says. It's clear those who run this place don't give two damns about it.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


That's one of the better arguments I've read.

Thank you.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



Very obtuse and disengenuous reply. The point is a good one, same document, similar right.


No it's not.

1. The freedom to say whatever you want. ( as long as you aren't endangering anybody of course)
2. The freedom to own firearms.

These are NOT the same, they do not carry the same repercussions in society. If you think they are the same thing, then please provide a suitable comparison. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make you look right.

I don't disagree with how to change such things, you should have been filing constitutional amendments for the last 150 years to change some of the nonsense that exists in that document. Or to re-enforce parts of it that aren't iron clad enough.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I find it interesting that different people look at the Constitution and only consider the parts they agree with to be "unchangeable".

If ANY of it can be amended, ALL of it is subject to change.

No matter how extreme or complacent a person is, they can all agree that the Constitution has been changed to the benefit of everyone in the past. Any article within the Constitution must be defended outside of any defined rights delineated within it. It is not enough to say, "it is in the Constitution" and have that be the end of it because the Constitution has and will change.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Gun control is a moot cause I'll tell ya why. Every time there Is a mass shooting people run to wall mart and buy guns and ammo. When the gun grabbers wave thieving fists gun sales sky rocket in my state. I'd imagine it's not much different in any other state. The only result out of all of this is the gun prices going up and creating revenue for weapons manufacturers . I've never been a gun buff my whole life I use to be very liberal and came from a "guns are bad" up bringing. Well that had all changed since the while social engineering of gun fear. So I went and got my permit to conceal carry, bought a AR15 a Glock and a shot gun and stockage up on ammo since and got a membership with the local gun range . Not because I feel I need all these weapons or feel any safer. But it's because I can, utilize my right to my amended right to bare arms. I figured I might as well take advantage while I still can since my own government has encroached on the rest and practically abolished the constitution . It's a big FU to the control freaks on Capitol Hill . So they inspired me to become weaponised and understand fire arms hands on. I also got a warm and fuzzy feeling of satisfaction when I was pulled over and the police seen my permit to carry in my wallet, oh the look on his face knowing the playing field is equal it was golden. He was really scared, it is sad at the same time the jack boots fear a armed public. I have learned there is so much ignorance surrounding guns and unfounded claims of the AR 15 being an assault title when it's just a carbine. I didn't know the difference until I got one. Instead of projecting fear if people were educated on gun safety and responsibility you would find gun violence and shootings dwindling. While the media dodges the real issue... Mental illness in the USA. A murderer can kill without guns easily all it takes a will to do so. It's never been guns. It's the PTB that is not willing to spend the money on treating the mentally ill. That is has an always been the meat and potatoes of it. I enjoy reading the educated responses on guns I am still learning. I decided if there was a gun ban my arms would only be removed by force. Molon labe
edit on 8-3-2014 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2014 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2014 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   

BASSPLYR
reply to post by Notheycant
 


I had to stop watching after the first few seconds as you were severely mishandling a firearm. Sorry.


Exactly.

It reminds me of those times when you are making a point and some idiot decides to "help" you.

Dude, stop. You aren't helping. People will use your video as evidence AGAINST gun ownership.






top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join