Author Topic: The Second Amendment (Read 4182 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #135 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:24:53 AM »

And once again you have exhibited a lack of reading comprehension skills.

My entire point in this thread was this:

1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.

Neither of these points have been refuted in the least. In fact the simple act of arguing and posting links on both sides emphasizes my point.

It's OK though. Like I said, I accept your apologies.

john9001 · « **Reply #136 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:57:43 AM »

"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

yeah, that's really vague, i'd better find someone to explain what it means:rolleyes:

Maverick · « **Reply #137 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:05:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
And once again you have exhibited a lack of reading comprehension skills.

My entire point in this thread was this:

1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.

Neither of these points have been refuted in the least. In fact the simple act of arguing and posting links on both sides emphasizes my point.

It's OK though. Like I said, I accept your apologies.

HHHMMMm so that is the point of your argument. It's also rather silly. Example

1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the holocaust happened.

2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on bot sides of the argument.

Now exactly how does that have any bearing on the veracity of the situation? Reality is not changed merely because it's debated or that educated people are doing the debate.

You really should get over this obsession with apologies that are not due to you.

StuB · « **Reply #138 on:** March 28, 2007, 11:10:59 AM »

Well, aren't you commander obvious!

1. Yes, there is a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. Yes, there are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.

So what exactly is your point?

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
And once again you have exhibited a lack of reading comprehension skills.

My entire point in this thread was this:

1. There is indeed a debate on whether or not the 2nd is an individual right.
2. There are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument.

Neither of these points have been refuted in the least. In fact the simple act of arguing and posting links on both sides emphasizes my point.

It's OK though. Like I said, I accept your apologies.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #139 on:** March 28, 2007, 11:58:25 AM »

I think his point is that he's a sheeple and doesn't think a debate is even needed. That we should just blindly follow the orders of the government and not question anything they do, especialy if it agrees with his political point of view. Well maybe not, but if someone told MT that he couldn't own a gun, he'd probably just say, "well OK if that's what you really think is best."

As far as educated people on both sides of the argument, I'd have to disagree on that. The anti gun crowd is the biggest group of idots out there. They have no clue what they are talking about. They have no knowledge of weapons, and are stupid enough to belive that an inanimate object is capable of doing something evil all by itself. Please tell me of just one person that is anti gun that actually knows what they are talking about. I bet you can't.

"Guns are evil" Well by golly they are wrong. I've kept live rounds in my shotgun for over 20 years and never, not once, has my shotgun gotten up all by itself and shot anything. If it was evil it should have killed me or my wife or kids a long time ago. I've yet to hear of a gun that just went off and killed someone all by itself. The stories you hear when someone says "The gun just went off" actually means "I was messing with it and I didn't know what I was doing and I fired the gun by mistake because I'm stupid."

Here's a favorite one of mine. "Guns kill people" Well so do cars so lets get rid of them too. Hell I'd feel safer with everyone carrying a gun and walking than I do when I get on the road with some of these idiot drivers that are out there. I see it everyday. The little soccer mom with the anti gun bumper sticker on her mini van driving while she's talking on her cell phone, putting on makeup, and eating her bagel and cream cheese. Yeah she's real freaking smart. She's driving a 2 ton vehicle at 60MPH, not paying attention to what she's doing and has a higher probablity of killing someone because she's being stupid, than me and my gun ever will. But yeah I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because that's a bad thing.

How many of these elected officials that are anti gun are running around with conceled carry permits and armed body guards?? Hmmmm Nancy Pelosi comes to mind. Typical of that crowd. It's OK for me to have, but not you because you can't be trusted. Well piss on that.

Now they want to ban guns because of how they look???????? "errr hmmm well it looks really intimidating and I don't like that so lets ban those guns because we don't want anyone to feel intimidated or scarred if they see one" I loved the whole flash suppresor issue. These inteligent people banned flash suppresors on weapons because????? They thought that a flash suppresor hides the muzzle flash making it some sort of stealth weapon. Opps wrong again. Flash suppresors dispurse the flash out of the line of sight for the shooter so the guy holding the gun doesn't get blinded by the flash. Gee that was real smart of them huh. You can have a loaded gun but we're going to make it so when you shoot it it blinds you. So know you have someone holding a loaded weapon and know he can't see.

But yeah MT you go right on beliving there are inteligent and highly educated people on both sides of the argument. The pro gun crowd knows better.

lazs2 · « **Reply #140 on:** March 28, 2007, 02:28:19 PM »

well... mt is in a really bad spot on this...

No matter what he believes... he is stuck because he supports the aclu and the democratic party... the two remaining places that still cling to the socialist ideal and the strange "collective rights" theory on the second.

The debate is there but no real constitutional scholar believes that the second is anything more than what it appears to be... an individual right.

regardless of what mt may or may not believe on a personal level... he has to go along with the party line.... he has too much of the rest of his politics invested in it.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #141 on:** March 28, 2007, 03:46:59 PM »

I think Mav won that round. By a landslide.

Helrazr1 · « **Reply #142 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:06:49 PM »

MT, the day that we start telling you that we're sorry is the day that hell freezes over! Why is it that your "points" keep changing as the thread progresses? If you read some of your posts on the first two pages, I'm sure that everyone would agree that you had some other worthless points there too. Surprisingly enough, they weren't the ones listed in your most recent posts. Why don't you decide on exactly what is is that you want to believe for the moment, so that we can tell you why it is ignorant!

Hornet33 · « **Reply #143 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:14:32 PM »

That would require him to commit to a postion and we all know sheeple democraps won't do any such thing. They're kinda like jellyfish. They go where the current takes them.

midnight Target · « **Reply #144 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:18:38 PM »

Toad, please.

Comparing the debate over the 2nd to holocaust deniers? LOL..

Let me help you guys who seem to be having trouble.. now follow the bouncing punctuation.

Toad - So, just as you can find people that will argue that the world is flat, you can find people that will argue the 2nd isn't an individual right.

Me - Supreme Court Ruling (Miller.), 7th circuit ruling (hardly like holocaust deniers or the flat earth society)

lazs - Jim Crow - a shotgun is a "militia weapon" Miller was framed...

Me - 6th circuit ruling stating it is NOT an individual right (Those darned holocaust denier judges again!)

etc. etc.

Mav won the silly point award... well done Mav.

It's OK though Toad, I accept your ap... I mean I forgive you...

Maverick · « **Reply #145 on:** March 28, 2007, 05:54:56 PM »

MT,

I wasn't trying to be silly or even facetious. I just pointed out the post of yours I quoted was null in any means to convince or even to argue a point.

It neither reinforced your assertion that the 2nd is some how the only non individual right in a document comprised of individual rights. Again the Bill of Rights does NOT grant rights. Governments do not give people rights they only limit rights, The BofR limits governments intrusion into civil liberties of Citizens that should not be infringed short of the individual abusing the rights or committing crimes that call for removing them by a court action.

midnight Target · « **Reply #146 on:** March 28, 2007, 06:03:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
MT,

I wasn't trying to be silly or even facetious. I just pointed out the post of yours I quoted was null in any means to convince or even to argue a point.

It neither reinforced your assertion that the 2nd is some how the only non individual right in a document comprised of individual rights. Again the Bill of Rights does NOT grant rights. Governments do not give people rights they only limit rights, The BofR limits governments intrusion into civil liberties of Citizens that should not be infringed short of the individual abusing the rights or committing crimes that call for removing them by a court action.

There you go again.. missed it by

T H A T

much. The post you quoted was a position statement, not intended to convince or argue. I backed up that position over and over again. You and your buds were the ones insisting on arguing something completely different.

I hope you enjoyed yourselves.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #147 on:** March 28, 2007, 06:21:00 PM »

I have yet to see these "reasonable, intelligent, and intellectually honest" people arguing for gun control.

Would that be Sarah Brady, who illegally attempted to circumvent "reasonable" gun laws by buying a rifle for her son out of state?

Would that be Diane Feinstein, who, along with her husband, has a CCW permit, and swept the entire room with the muzzle of an AK-47 at a press conference?

Would that be Michael Bloomberg, who illegally sent private investigators ACROSS STATE LINES to set up a "sting" operation to make straw purchases, while he has several body guards with weapons protecting him at all times?

Would that be Hillary Clinton, who also has armed guards as he constant companions?

How about Madonna, whose armed guards actually SHOT an unarmed trespasser?

Or maybe Rosie O'Donnell, who also employs about a dozen armed body guards?

Maybe you mean Barbara Striesand, who not only has armed guards, but feels she has the right to keep AIRCRAFT from crossing her property?

Yes, a bunch of really smart, reasonable, well intentioned individuals who feel they know better than you what rights you should and should not have, and who feel THEY are entitled to protection they are quite willing to deny you. They all either have guns and permits, or HIRE people to carry guns FOR them, because they DESERVE protection, but feel you do not.

Toad · « **Reply #148 on:** March 28, 2007, 06:35:52 PM »

Sorry MT.

Mav has ya, this whole thread has ya.

Any honest person that looks at the writings of the Founders on guns, looks at the Constitutions of the first states to ratify the national Constitution, looks at the Bill of Rights as a whole, as a list of individual rights, HAS to come to the conclusion that the 2nd is an individual right and always has been.

IF they are honest.

Now, you defend the legitimacy of the argument by bringing up a couple of incorrect SC decisions...Miller is clearly one of those... and pretend that legitimizes the discussion.

It does not.

The SC makes mistakes; the example of the "separate but equal" decision in Plessy is one of those and I know you agree.

So can I argue, based on Plessy, that there are reasonable and highly educated people on both sides of the argument?

I think that is just as laughable as the argument you make about the 2nd.

Mav has ya... game/set/match.

Helrazr1 · « **Reply #149 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:12:49 PM »

Decided to go ahead and edit this one

Good post though Toad!