***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

The entire thread. The fact that we have a debate about taking peoples rights away to own an inanimate object that does discriminatory damage by a government that is based on these types of weapons and extremely large indiscriminate weapons is baffling to me. Why does our government need so many of these weapons?

Gotcha. Your position is duly noted.

It is kind of odd that the people who seem most afraid of government domination also support virtually unlimited "defense" spending and placing an armed government employee in close proximity to all our children. But whatever.

That is your own conclusion separate from reality. I don't have to fear government domination in order to want and hold fast to my civil rights. And I personally disagree with both gun limitation for sane and law abiding citizens and detest the amount of military spending our government does.. Sorry for burning down your strawman..

What civil rights are being infringed on here?

Right to bear arms

you are going to have to unpack this a bit

Ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

 

[pantherclub]

oh boy

 

[Slingblade]

You watched that 7min+ video in 1min? Nice!

 

[pantherclub]

a minute was all I could take

 

[timschochet]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:

The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy.

The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

Tim you are being an ###, you lost and are wrong. You will be better off accepting your fate.

why dont you answer him?

He has already been answered numerous time with links, essays and the actual wording on the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.He doesn't agree with the whole concept of the 2nd amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers of this country, how am I to answer him with anything better defined than that?

that is incorrect.

 

[Slingblade]

So #### about it and don't post about it.Either watch and rebut it or #### off.

 

[Slingblade]

I am no constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take one to recognize the absurd logical consequences of believing that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend against the possibility of government tyranny:

The first consequence of this argument, from a historical perspective, is that it absolutely legitimizes Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was completely in the wrong. Any state (or for that matter, community) has the right to revolt or secede from the union if it perceives tyranny. In other words, complete and total anarchy.

The second consequence is there can be no gun control laws which would infringe upon one's ability to defend against the government. Since pistols and rifles are not enough to defend against the modern military, we cannot restrict the right of private citizens to obtain rocket launchers, drones, and nuclear weapons, if need be. How else can they hope to match the US Army?

Tim you are being an ###, you lost and are wrong. You will be better off accepting your fate.

why dont you answer him?

He has already been answered numerous time with links, essays and the actual wording on the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.He doesn't agree with the whole concept of the 2nd amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers of this country, how am I to answer him with anything better defined than that?

that is incorrect.

 

[pantherclub]

:takesbreath:

 

[Slingblade]

So have you made an argument in this thread at all?

 

[pantherclub]

You guys are making it for me.Gun nuts are ####### crazy

 

[Henry Ford]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

 

[Slingblade]

You guys are making it for me.Gun nuts are ####### crazy

Keep it up. You're a more blatant troll that most.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Fixed

 

[badmojo1006]

Pantherclub, you better watch it or Slingblade will strap you to a chair and make you watch it like in Clockwork Orange

 

[timschochet]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

 

[Slingblade]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

 

[pantherclub]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So... I think I've got it straight now.. The federal government can give rocket launchers and full auto assault weapons etc., to extremists that will turn around and blow us up as soon as we could blink.. And military grade assault weapons to drug cartels so that they can use them against our citizens, government employees even.. But I can't own a 20 round clip for a pistol..Got it..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

 

[Brony]

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Like owning blacks as property. Thank you God!

 

[Slingblade]

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Like owning blacks as property. Thank you God!

Logical fallacy much? Move along troll.

 

[pantherclub]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

I am not Jewish

 

[timschochet]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

 

[pantherclub]

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Like owning blacks as property. Thank you God!

thats going to leave a mark

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

you have to make an argument in order to win one.. Lapping up the spilled fruit of Tim's loin isn't exactly making an argument.. Imo..

 

[Henry Ford]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

 

[pantherclub]

Does Slingblade answer the door with a gun as well? I have lost track of all the nuts in here that do.

 

[Slingblade]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

 

[pantherclub]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

you have to make an argument in order to win one.. Lapping up the spilled fruit of Tim's loin isn't exactly making an argument.. Imo..

reading comprehension has never been to your advantage

 

[Slingblade]

Does Slingblade answer the door with a gun as well? I have lost track of all the nuts in here that do.

If I have not taken my conceal carry gun off when I get home, then yes.

 

[Henry Ford]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

Oh, okay, just the first two Amendment?

 

[Apple Jack]

The BLADE...rollin' t-u-f-f.

 

[Slingblade]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

Oh, okay, just the first two Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

[Henry Ford]

Wait, when God gave us the right to bear arms, had we mastered the use of simple tools to use as weapons? It seems like a crazy thing to call a natural right, but if you say so.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

you have to make an argument in order to win one.. Lapping up the spilled fruit of Tim's loin isn't exactly making an argument.. Imo..

reading comprehension has never been to your advantage

Probably not as much an advantage for me as trolling is for you.. but everyone basically knows your bit at this point so why bother pointing it out... Go on considering your posts as part of a real debate, and I'll go on with the ridicule.. Funny thing is you really think you have made a point or valid argument when you post, you don't even realize you're a troll.. It's like when crazy's don't realize they're crazy right? You know that basically puts you on a 'don't sell him firearms list' right?...

 

[pantherclub]

Wait, when God gave us the right to bear arms, had we mastered the use of simple tools to use as weapons? It seems like a crazy thing to call a natural right, but if you say so.

The nuts are getting exposed in here

 

[pantherclub]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

you have to make an argument in order to win one.. Lapping up the spilled fruit of Tim's loin isn't exactly making an argument.. Imo..

reading comprehension has never been to your advantage

Probably not as much an advantage for me as trolling is for you.. but everyone basically knows your bit at this point so why bother pointing it out... Go on considering your posts as part of a real debate, and I'll go on with the ridicule.. Funny thing is you really think you have made a point or valid argument when you post, you don't even realize you're a troll.. It's like when crazy's don't realize they're crazy right? You know that basically puts you on a 'don't sell him firearms list' right?...

why do I need to buy a gun?

 

[Henry Ford]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

Oh, okay, just the first two Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Yes, and the Bill of Rights is a great example of that second kind of rights. This brilliant 'wikipedia' you guys keep referencing calls them 'legal rights' I believe.

 

[MAC_32]

I really wish that god gave us guns built into our hands. That'd be pretty cool.

Or arms made of fire.

 

[Apple Jack]

I really wish that god gave us guns built into our hands. That'd be pretty cool.

PENISBAZOOKA

 

[Slingblade]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.

Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

Oh, okay, just the first two Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Yes, and the Bill of Rights is a great example of that second kind of rights. This brilliant 'wikipedia' you guys keep referencing calls them 'legaldon'thas rights' I believe.

This country was founded on natural law, pal.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am still waiting on how this gov't is infringing on your right to bear arms?

You can wait forever, but they won't be able to give you a sensible answer because there isn't one. If limiting high capacity magazines violated the 2nd Amendment, then the AWB law would have been overturned in 1994 when it was first passed. If requiring background checks for private sales violated the 2nd Amendment, then laws which already have this is numerous states would have been overturned long since. But none of these have been overturned, for the very simple reason that the Supreme Court does not agree with this extremist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment. And the NRA knows this; that's why rather than claim that these laws actually violate the 2nd Amendment, they very carefully use language like "violates the SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment", and they hope that their blind and ignorant followers don't notice the difference. As this thread demonstrates, it's working.

best post of this thread

You two must have a great time rubbing each other off in the bathroom at family reunions..

This is how I know that I'm winning the argument. Along with Slingblade calling me a moron and telling me to #### off.

you have to make an argument in order to win one.. Lapping up the spilled fruit of Tim's loin isn't exactly making an argument.. Imo..

reading comprehension has never been to your advantage

Probably not as much an advantage for me as trolling is for you.. but everyone basically knows your bit at this point so why bother pointing it out... Go on considering your posts as part of a real debate, and I'll go on with the ridicule.. Funny thing is you really think you have made a point or valid argument when you post, you don't even realize you're a troll.. It's like when crazy's don't realize they're crazy right? You know that basically puts you on a 'don't sell him firearms list' right?...

why do I need to buy a gun?

I feel safer already

 

[[icon]]

the bill of rights also plainly states it was created and ratified in response to concerns from several states that government might be misconstrued or abuse power.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think Article 9 explicity spells out that these are natural rights

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words the relationship of the government to the people is the people have rights as citizens which they then can grant some power over to the government. Which is the genius of the United States. Our forefathers were smart dudes, they realized the best way to avoid a tyrannical all-powerful government was to grant these inalienable rights, then create a system of gov't fraught with inefficiencies and balances of power.

I will address something that troubles me more so than any of the constitutional issues that can and will be discussed ad naseum. I'll admit I was pretty wrong about something that happened shortly after 9/11. Our country was very upset about what happened and in our haste to make right, we rammed through the Patriot Act, which I fully supported and now regret supporting.

I dont' think kneejerk reactions to traumatic events is the best way to make law in this country, at all. I can only imagine the howls of protest on this board if in 5 years we had a fairly right wing President who in response to some traumatic event decided that he need to issue executive orders limiting the rights to privacy, or the rights to free speech or any other rights we retain as US citizens. Maybe in that context some of the pro-gun control folks in this thread might cool their jets and think long term about what kind of power over their rights and lives we want to give the federal government.

Excellent post among all this useless clutter

 

[Henry Ford]

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

Oh, okay, just the first two Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Yes, and the Bill of Rights is a great example of that second kind of rights. This brilliant 'wikipedia' you guys keep referencing calls them 'legal rights' I believe.

This country was founded on natural law, pal.

Seems like a different statement than your 'common knowledge' statement earlier.Now, were there soldiers when God decreed that we didn't have to quarter them? This is so confusing.

 

[MAC_32]

Here's hoping today is the first of many good days...

 

[JHuber77]

So... I think I've got it straight now.. The federal government can give rocket launchers and full auto assault weapons etc., to extremists that will turn around and blow us up as soon as we could blink.. And military grade assault weapons to drug cartels so that they can use them against our citizens, government employees even.. But I can't own a 20 round clip for a pistol..Got it..

As Wesley Snipes would say from Demolition ManEXACTMUNDO!!!Fitting movie for this thread. Seriously lefties, you got your legislation, lets just hope that the bans on magazines and weapons doesn't come to fruition, because that will do nothing to quell gun violence as there are already more than 300 million guns in America. Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing either, as one can reload many magazines very quickly

 

[boots11234]

In celebration of the eventual defeat of king Obams gun ban I purchased a 60 round magazine!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I often wonder where we would be without the God given natural right to civil trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars.I believe that there exists in the laws of the nature the right of a human being to stand up to oppression. I just don't agree that it's codified in the Second Amendment.Natural rights don't have to be codified. Which is the point of the Ninth.

This is common knowledge. The bill of rights simply acknowledges god given rights.

Right. Like the God given right to trial by jury for controversies in excess of twenty dollars. Or the God given right for the States to retain all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

I'm talking about freedom of speech, press, arms, etc... Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

Oh, okay, just the first two Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Yes, and the Bill of Rights is a great example of that second kind of rights. This brilliant 'wikipedia' you guys keep referencing calls them 'legal rights' I believe.

This country was founded on natural law, pal.

Seems like a different statement than your 'common knowledge' statement earlier.Now, were there soldiers when God decreed that we didn't have to quarter them? This is so confusing.

It was a government decree.. And they could have been called soldiers then, but they'd either be called terrorists or drug cartels now, at least as it would seem since they're the only ones our government will make assault weapons available to.

 

[Apple Jack]

So... I think I've got it straight now.. The federal government can give rocket launchers and full auto assault weapons etc., to extremists that will turn around and blow us up as soon as we could blink.. And military grade assault weapons to drug cartels so that they can use them against our citizens, government employees even.. But I can't own a 20 round clip for a pistol..Got it..

As Wesley Snipes would say from Demolition ManEXACTMUNDO!!!Fitting movie for this thread. Seriously lefties, you got your legislation, lets just hope that the bans on magazines and weapons doesn't come to fruition, because that will do nothing to quell gun violence as there are already more than 300 million guns in America. Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing either, as one can reload many magazines very quickly

Nothing really gets down to the heart of serious matters like Wesley Snipes movies.

 

[Slingblade]

So... I think I've got it straight now.. The federal government can give rocket launchers and full auto assault weapons etc., to extremists that will turn around and blow us up as soon as we could blink.. And military grade assault weapons to drug cartels so that they can use them against our citizens, government employees even.. But I can't own a 20 round clip for a pistol..Got it..

As Wesley Snipes would say from Demolition ManEXACTMUNDO!!!Fitting movie for this thread. Seriously lefties, you got your legislation, lets just hope that the bans on magazines and weapons doesn't come to fruition, because that will do nothing to quell gun violence as there are already more than 300 million guns in America. Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing either, as one can reload many magazines very quickly

Don't taint all of us lefties. I'm a lefty...these guys are authoritarians.