Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

lol...

check the fatality stats from the crusades..

originally posted by: HauntWok

As I've said before, that would not be up to me, but would have to be determined on a case by case basis. No broad brushes.

So, more hyperbole.
You offer mental illness as your grail for stopping gun violence, yet have no input as to what would define a person from being prohibited.
I assume you would leave that up to the Govt and Govt medicine to decide on.
DO you make any decision on your own?

originally posted by: HauntWok
Shall not be infringed means absolutely nothing without the rest of the sentence it belongs to.

I am glad you said that, so please do enlighten me. What does it mean, in context with the first part then?

originally posted by: HauntWok
I never said i was ok with violence of any kind.

Then why not the outrage for anything other then crime with a firearm?

originally posted by: HauntWok
The laws on the books already do an adequate job about illegal firearms, although enforcement can always improve.

So, we don't need further laws.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Detroit is in mad max mode, I don't care what that cesspool does. They should sell the city to Windsor as a landfill.

So, discount that because it doesn't fit with your narrative.

Well, at least with every further post, you show exactly who you are and what you "believe" in.

originally posted by: HauntWok

If guns were a god given right, you would have been born with a gun. You weren't.

We are born with a sole, but you can't see it.
What about freedom of speech? When born you can't talk. Guess that gets thrown out the window.

Man, your understanding of life is really screwed up.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Its not a god given right but an amendment to the constitution, and it can be repealed. Don't kid yourself.

I would love to see the attempt to have it repealed.

But, seeing as that would fail miserably, I would bring the popcorn for that.

Why don't you start the push to do so.

a reply to: macman

You are born with the equipment to speak. But it's not a god given right.

The only good given rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's it.

originally posted by: HauntWok
The only good given rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That's it.

Which the Constitution, in its preamble, outlines and then goes on, in the Bill of Rights, to define.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

You are born with the equipment to speak. But it's not a god given right.

The only good given rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's it.

When born, you are not free. As you must depend on parents.

Your "this equals that" doesn't work.

But, thanks for cherry picking what you want to address.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

You are born with the equipment to speak. But it's not a god given right.

The only good given rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's it.

And when born, you have the "equipment" needed to use a firearm later in life. Just like speech.


Try try again.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
I just saw this thread, and i am strongly agains guns. Mostly because you cant run away from a gun. Guns have something, other weapons dont have : Range of fire. I have never seen a knife to kill 2 people from far. I do think all guns should be destroyed, and people should go to the old times with swords. Before lot of people actually survived the wars, not because they run away, but because they had cut of arms and legs, which made them incapable of battle. Now even a man in wheelchair can shoot a gun and kill.

What are you talking about? Yes less people died due to actual weapons, but MORE people died back in the day due to infections. If you lost an arm or leg in battle, chances are you were a dead man. Not to mention the cats out of the bag. Guns are here to stay. You better just get right with it. You also forgot about the bow and arrow and the crossbow, both of which have range.

***ATTENTION***

ENOUGH!!

The next member to violate the T&C will be rewarded with a lenghtly posting ban, and a review of your account by staff at large.

This nonsense ends now. Discuss the TOPIC, not each other.

Final Warning.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Incorrect!

It does NOT say that in the constitution, it says it in the declaration of independence.

The preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Incorrect!

You do not get Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness unless you:

...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You then need to enumerate how the above will be accomplished, the Bill of Rights does this.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The bill of rights is a series of amendments to the united states constitution that limit some government authority, and for the most part tel the government what they cannot do.

Out does not in any way give you special rights.

And they can be legally taken away under the fifth amendments due process clause.

Having a firearm is not a god given right, it's a right given to you by the framers of the constitution. And through due process it can be taken away, like if a judge decides that you aren't mentally competent enough and he believes that impairment makes you to dangerous to possess a firearm legally.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Having a firearm is not a god given right, it's a right given to you by the framers of the constitution.

The Framers understood that the only way the citizens of the new country could protect their God-given rights in perpetuity was be being armed. That is not open to debate.

The Declaration presented those rights, the Constitution provided the framework for keeping them.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What the second was for was to ensure this nation was protected by a well armed, well regulated militia against foreign invaders, domestic enemies, and a rogue military.

Along the way somehow we ended up with a permanent standing army. Something that or founding fathers did not want. Also the people forgot that they were the militia, and they are to be trained as prescribed by congress and led by an officer of their state.

It wasn't so nutty mcnutterson could have enough guns and ammo to start a war by himself.

originally posted by: HauntWok
What the second was for was to ensure this nation was protected by a well armed, well regulated militia against foreign invaders, domestic enemies, and a rogue military.

You conveniently left out their main reason, a tyrannical government. There are numerous quotes about the ability to depose the government if it became tyrannical.

Also the people forgot that they were the militia, and they are to be trained as prescribed by congress and led by an officer of their state.

You also left out arming. I do not see Congress paying for my firearms so they are shirking their duties manifold.

It wasn't so nutty mcnutterson could have enough guns and ammo to start a war by himself.

The Constitution does not preclude Mr. McNutterson from owing them either. You need to get used to this fact as it is established constitutional law and is not up for debate.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Of course conditional law is up for debate, the constitution is a living document not a scripture, that's why we have the supreme court.

It's changeable moldible that's why alcohol is once again legal. There was an amendment just like the second that got ratified, then it was repealed.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Of course conditional law is up for debate, the constitution is a living document not a scripture, that's why we have the supreme court.

It is currently not open for debate and unless you have a brief you are planning to file on why Mr. Mc Nutterson cannot own a volume of firearms then it will remain so.

It's changeable moldible that's why alcohol is once again legal. There was an amendment just like the second that got ratified, then it was repealed.

Poor example. Prohibition, driven by the Intemperance Movement (who are similar to the anti-Second Amendment crowd) had this added. Common sense then prevailed and it was repealed. The Second Amendment was there from inception, it is a fundamental concept and not an after thought added at a later date to appease a faction of the citizenry.

a reply to: HauntWok

actually, the bill of rights is not the government "giving" us rights...it is a list of rights we already had, the purpose of the bill of rights is to enumerate them, for their protection.