Second Amendment

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country,it has been decided what we can own and where we can own it.The current laws are BEYOND sufficient and are not fully implemented anyway.
In short,we WILL CONTINUE to keep semi rifles of any type or caliber in order to repel hostility of any origin.
Can I do it? Not alone but then again I'm not the only guy out here either.Any effort to stop this is short sighted and a waste of time because we intend to keep them. It is a common sense tool to millions to do so.
Efforts to the contrary are a threat to us and we react accordingly.
I understand they frighten people and criminals and whack ball are more dangerous as a result of their existance but THEY will always get a weapon to do harm.Only another weapon will stop them.The police WILL NOT protect you but they will investigate what happens AFTER the deed is done.That is why we need our guns and magazines in case the ZETAS get all froggy or Obama decided to let DHS start rounding people up wholesale who aren't progressive,neither of these are likely but as long as we have firearms they'll keep in line.




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


I believe you will learn that the "gunners" don't rely on the 2nd amendment much. Arguments will start there but they quickly lose contact with the Constitution. The arguments go in some absolutely irrational, illogical directions.
Examples:
1. Absolutely any change whatsoever in current law collapses into 100% gun confiscation scenarios. It's beyond rational debate as there is a mountain of historical evidence that proves otherwise.
2. Wild, crazy-eyed interpretations of the constitution. Something they heard on Glen Beck or Alex Jones. That sort of thing.
3. It's a God given right or a basic human right to own more guns and ammo that can possibly be used. If it goes here it's officially off the deep end.

These all break down. When they do, the name calling begins. To see the final act, all you have to do is ridicule the individual. I guess you know what comes next... it's the big mean gun talk! I'm bored arguing the 2nd amendment, it's a red herring any way. I try and skip straight to the name calling and big mean gun talk.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
The term arms is considered to be directly related to firearms by the Supreme Court based on many of the writings from the people that put the second amendment together as well as the language of the time. As you stated however, it is not an unlimited right and can be regulated by Congress.

The Heller case did apply to States because it overturned the long standing ban on handguns in the District of Columbia and even though its a federal enclave the precedent applies to all States. This is why no state will try to outright ban guns again because they know the first court it goes to will strike it down based on the Heller case.

Prior to the Heller case it was assumed, and rightly so, that the second only applied to the federal government but the Courts decision expanded the right to states no matter how you decide to interpret it.


I find it truly amazing how people completely ignore references in black and white by reputable authorities and believe otherwise without a shred of evidence to show...



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...


Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Guns are staying. Get over it.
Obviously the entire purpose of this thread is to take a shot [ no pun intended ] at gun owners and those who stand for the 2nd Amendment. Why it hasn't been s**t canned as political trolling, I don't know.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DAVID64
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Guns are staying. Get over it.
Obviously the entire purpose of this thread is to take a shot [ no pun intended ] at gun owners and those who stand for the 2nd Amendment. Why it hasn't been s**t canned as political trolling, I don't know.


You are mistaken. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA and related gun laws. Thank you for illustrating how people misconstrue reality in accordance with their own desires.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
"Arms" as the vernacular used during the time of the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights referred to "FireArms" which were the weapons used by the civilian militia (muskets and cannon for that matter). Technically "arms" includes the other weapons but they would not be effective in protecting the state against enemies.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by DAVID64
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Guns are staying. Get over it.
Obviously the entire purpose of this thread is to take a shot [ no pun intended ] at gun owners and those who stand for the 2nd Amendment. Why it hasn't been s**t canned as political trolling, I don't know.


You are mistaken. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA and related gun laws. Thank you for illustrating how people misconstrue reality in accordance with their own desires.

You are mistaken. The purpose of this thread is to denigrate and bash gun owners ("gunners") based on assertions by staff writers at the Washington Post. All references arguing the inapplicability of the Heller decision are from the Washington Post. It boggles the mind that ANY ruling, law, incident or anything adversely affecting the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the states while those that support it are applicable "only in Federal enclaves". Tripe and bafgabble of the highest order.

A serious discussion of the 2nd amendment can NOT take place without delving into the Federalist Papers, et al. Reams of opinion, .....like those of the Washington Post staff writers and their sources.....OPINIONS....., have been written on the topic. A FAIR discussion recognizes these opinions as opinions, not inviolable sources of the intent and purpose of Heller, or any other ruling.

The OP has failed to present any actual "facts" except those assertions written by pundits and staff journalists at the left leaning Washington Post and then PORTRAYED as fact. His entire diatribe, including the very snarky responses, is, in fact, irrelevant.

When I got home from Vietnam, I went into Law Enforcement. We raised four children safely with mine and my wife's service revolvers in the house. When I left law enforcement, I chose NOT to keep firearms. I CHOSE, NOT SOME FACELESS GOVERNMENT ENTITY. I, and I alone, will decide if I ever want them again.

If you anti gun folks would put as much effort into forcing the courts and legal system to keep violent offenders in jail where they belong, address the causes of crime and actually DO something instead of whining about the number of guns in circulation, we might create a safer world.

Good God, when I see the level of naivety in your arguments, I have to wonder how many of you are shaving yet???



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Ir equally amazes me how these arrogant PC progs from major population centers seek to label us and further their ridiculous and dangerous opinions on the rest of us like we are some sort of dregs of the American culture.The flash in the pan neo hippies are riding a wave a of popularity now so they feel empowered to bash the silent majority with their rude semantic jousts in a failed effort to foist their opinions as rule over all.
They get shot down here with little things like facts,logic and history and all they have left are insults, or just contradiction with statistics or maybe actors.

The pendulum WILL swing back to right again after this administration leaves,although I don't actively seek to control others like that,MANY people in the middle are getting sick of both parties crap. I'm OK you're OK has morphed into I'm OK so you have to be like ME.It is YOUR opinion.that is all it is,a singular individual,with limited experience and the embarrassing pursuit of a socialist paradise.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by spock51
All references arguing the inapplicability of the Heller decision are from the Washington Post.


You are the wrong one my friend. First of all, the ruling occurred in Washington in a case in Washington DC. Which paper did you think it should be reported in - The Miami Herald? The second thing you were wrong about was that all the references I posted with regard to this legal issue were from the Washington Post. My 7:50 AM post on 5/31 linked to the Touro Law Review as a reference which states:


it leaves unresolved the incorporation issue-whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government. That basic question was not presented or resolved in Heller because at issue in Heller was a D.C. law, and the District of Columbia is a federal enclave.


If you believe otherwise please share your legal degrees with us. I hope that you were more observant in your time as a law enforcement official.

I have clearly shown here that you are in error and that the things you say should are to be doubted at the very least.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Another group who seeks to become our superiors are academicians and legal pukes. They are a VERY small group that is a thorn in our sides when they go all political.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Another group who seeks to become our superiors are academicians and legal pukes. They are a VERY small group that is a thorn in our sides when they go all political.


So well said from Wikipedia:




Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternatively, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly, and perhaps more accurately, used description for this phenomenon. In public discourse, anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against political elitism and academic elitism — proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education. Because "anti-intellectual" can be pejorative, defining specific cases of anti-intellectualism can be troublesome; one can object to specific facets of intellectualism or the application thereof without being dismissive of intellectual pursuits in general. Moreover, allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute an appeal to authority or an appeal to ridicule that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than specifically addressing his or her arguments.[1] Anti-intellectualism is a common facet of totalitarian dictatorships to oppress political dissent. The Nazi party's populist rhetoric featured anti-intellectualism as a common motif, including Adolf Hitler's political polemic, Mein Kampf. Perhaps its most extreme political form was during the 1970s in Cambodia under the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, when people were killed for being academics or even for merely wearing eyeglasses (as it suggested literacy) in the Killing Fields.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


That pic should have summed up all arguments regarding this. But, since you press, I will let you have it.

Let's start it this way, what does the 2nd Amendment state?

I understand that you and other Anti-Gun Rights people would love to do away with firearms, but.....it isn't going to happen and it is not Constitutional.

As for you public opinion statement??? Really??? You and other rely on the bastardized "polling data" to run with the idea that America wants more gun control over people. That is all that you base your arguments on.
The polls you parade around as truth are laughable at best. Here is a polling source referenced in the link you gave. www.washingtonpost.com...
A web poll. Yeah, so excuse me while I really hod it to any merit.

The numbers of guns sales, concealed weapons licenses and membership into the NRA speaks more towards your junk polls.

I get it, you are afraid of people owning guns, because you can't control them with a gun. So, you fear people with guns.

I hope to God that you don't live in the Anti-Gun rights haven of NY, as the last 48 hours gave them 25 murders.
Yeah more gun laws.

Your wrong, this time and every other time you spout off in Anti-Gun Rights crap.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Here are the fact and not your fantasies:

www.reuters.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.newser.com...


Deal with it.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...


Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.


You are arguing with leftist propaganda sites which BLATANTLY distort facts. That 90% figure is rediculous, it was created in polling that gave people the impression that you could just walk into a gun show and buy whatever, and by giving the illusion that 40% of purchases are done without background checks. Both of these are lies, but in order to know this you would have to get off of your agenda fed, propaganda painted pedestal who's composition is emotional garbage and fear.

How about this, instead of just sitting at your computer whining about your fears and trying to impose your ideas on others (which the second amendment crowd does not do, they just want to be left alone) how about you show us how easy it is to purchase guns the way that it is being portrayed by the media and the socialists... Show us how easy it is to order a gun online and have it shipped to your house... Find someone who doesn't know you to go make a straw purchase... Go to a gun show and just mention an under the table deal and see where it gets you...

Or are you just as scared to do those things because of the possible consequences as you are of other people and life in general?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...


Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.


You are arguing with leftist propaganda sites which BLATANTLY distort facts. That 90% figure is rediculous, it was created in polling that gave people the impression that you could just walk into a gun show and buy whatever, and by giving the illusion that 40% of purchases are done without background checks. Both of these are lies, but in order to know this you would have to get off of your agenda fed, propaganda painted pedestal who's composition is emotional garbage and fear.

How about this, instead of just sitting at your computer whining about your fears and trying to impose your ideas on others (which the second amendment crowd does not do, they just want to be left alone) how about you show us how easy it is to purchase guns the way that it is being portrayed by the media and the socialists... Show us how easy it is to order a gun online and have it shipped to your house... Find someone who doesn't know you to go make a straw purchase... Go to a gun show and just mention an under the table deal and see where it gets you...

Or are you just as scared to do those things because of the possible consequences as you are of other people and life in general?



See the facts in my last post. Then let's see if you are man enough to admit that you are wrong. I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 





Unless I am mistaken, assault-type, semi-automatic weapons were 'not in common use at the time' that the Amendment was written.
I always love this argument.

You know what else wasnt in common use back then? twitter, facebook, television, mass media, mass communication....guess its time to start redefining free speech, too?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans don't need armor layouts either ,and since I'm not a lawyer and popular opinion RUNS the country...


Popular opinion does NOT run the country. A perfect example is the issue of background checks for gun licenses. Over 90% of people want it [RFERENCE], yet the politicians in Washington vote against it because they are paid off by lobbyists.


You are arguing with leftist propaganda sites which BLATANTLY distort facts. That 90% figure is rediculous, it was created in polling that gave people the impression that you could just walk into a gun show and buy whatever, and by giving the illusion that 40% of purchases are done without background checks. Both of these are lies, but in order to know this you would have to get off of your agenda fed, propaganda painted pedestal who's composition is emotional garbage and fear.

How about this, instead of just sitting at your computer whining about your fears and trying to impose your ideas on others (which the second amendment crowd does not do, they just want to be left alone) how about you show us how easy it is to purchase guns the way that it is being portrayed by the media and the socialists... Show us how easy it is to order a gun online and have it shipped to your house... Find someone who doesn't know you to go make a straw purchase... Go to a gun show and just mention an under the table deal and see where it gets you...

Or are you just as scared to do those things because of the possible consequences as you are of other people and life in general?



See the facts in my last post. Then let's see if you are man enough to admit that you are wrong. I doubt it.


Mad bro? you are using propaganda, just try to do as they say you can and see how far it gets... your socialist "facts" are socialst half truths. Show proof with experience not made up agendas. Or would that require too much work? Quit being a government fed socialist and do something instead of expecting a hand out (distorted facts in this case). Prove your facts, i can prove mine... I have done everything I called you out on, all you have done is believe what others tell you like a good little socialist.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by TheFlash
 





Unless I am mistaken, assault-type, semi-automatic weapons were 'not in common use at the time' that the Amendment was written.
I always love this argument.

You know what else wasnt in common use back then? twitter, facebook, television, mass media, mass communication....guess its time to start redefining free speech, too?


If the Supreme Court rules it. Are you insinuating that the Supreme Court of The United States of America as made such a finding regarding the First Amendment, with regard to 'common use at the time'? If so then please share the reference with us.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join