RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment

RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 2:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah No we are talking about Guns Not Cars, if you want to talk about Cars go ahead it isn't in the Constitution but Guns are and they are Protected under it. Stop using analogys that don't work. Arms are Protected under the constitution We are talking about Constitutional Rights just because something else is a problem two does not make it a constitutional issue. Steel That depends on your interpretation of it. Many would argue it was never intended to to apply to every citizen. And this view is backed by the precedents of English common law, which most of our laws, including the Constitution, are based on.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 2:28:24 PM)
Rule there are times,not too often mind you since I'm incredibly good looking,....that I want to grow up to be just like you.A much better job at deflating the alphabet post of crush...thanxs

SteelofUtah -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 2:33:29 PM)
OHHHHH Please Explain how The constitution which starts WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was never intended to apply to every CITIZEN? I would LOVE to hear that? I would also love to hear how people who are NOT AMerican CITIZENS are still afforded Constitutional Rights I am still wating for that answer. Steel

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 2:41:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Several of the amendments speak to the right to free speech (not inflammatory) and the right to petition the government to redress grievances. Protests against governmental policies make use of these amendments...where would the left be without those amendments? Have the courts not decided that limitations on those free speech rights are acceptable and are those limitations not considered legally binding? Your own "(not inflammatory)" statement was a court ruling that limited the right.

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 3:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah OHHHHH Please Explain how The constitution which starts WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was never intended to apply to every CITIZEN? I would LOVE to hear that? I would also love to hear how people who are NOT AMerican CITIZENS are still afforded Constitutional Rights I am still wating for that answer. Steel I assume you are responding to me but have yet to master the reply feature. The controversy concerns the phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment, which I'm sure you know so I'm not really sure why you are asking. And the point I'm making is I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case. I think the decision was made for many reasons, but I don't think the Constitution was one of them. The Court has become extremely politicized in recent years and this was done basically to maintain the status quo, to not upset gun owners or hurt the business of gun manufacturers or gun dealers. As far as your last question, I never suggested that and it belongs on a different thread.

Victor59 -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 3:15:48 PM)
OK, couple misconceptions here: 1 – Gun shows – dealer’s man tables and must do background checks. Where the issue comes is if a gun owner sells directly to another person, (not a dealer), then there is not a current back ground check to transfer the weapon. Just like if you listed your gun for sale in the newspaper. 2 – Heller actually helped and hurt keeping guns. Helped in affirmation of guns are allowed, hurt because they said they could still be constrained by local and state laws. Hence D.C. is saying NO semi-automatic weapons and it is legal under Heller verdict. 3 – 52 people killed? Because they were in gun free zones? Have you reviewed Florida? Yep, they had gun control and Miami was the murder capital of the US. Then they made some great gun laws and the news said, “It’ll be a blood bath”. However, gun violence is at an all time low in FL, violence over all is at an all time low in FL. 4 – The thing is you cannot control people unless people allow it that is a basic tenant of being human. So you cannot keep bad guys from getting DOPE or from getting GUNS even though they may be illegal for them to have. 5 – Average murder rate going back to the year 1600 is about 6 per 100,000 annually. 6 – Great Britain got rid of all their guns except a FEW police. Crime is high, and KNIFE murders are even higher. 7 – Most mass murders, (with guns), in the US occur in ‘GUN FREE’ zones where larger number of people go, Schools, Churches, Restaurants, etc. Why? Because there is no one to shoot back! (the first part of gun control fallacy thinking is exposed). 8 – The ONLY reason I support the D.A.R.E. program is to keep an armed officer at my kid’s school. 9 – If the MEDIA would not publish killer’s names then there would be much less mass killing. People do these mass killings at places where there are limited access to guns for self defense because they want their 15 minutes of fame. (the second part of gun control fallacy thinking [its guns] is exposed, it is the idea that killing people will make you famous). 10 – Crush – your post was great! Slightly off kilter: We need to get our congress people to make laws based upon: 1 – What is the best decision for humanity? 2 – What is the best decision for Earth? 3 – What is the best decision for the US? 4 – What is the best decision for my area? And to QUIT making laws based upon the highest PAYER! That means term limits and donation regulations!

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 3:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush I agree Steel. Driving is a "privilege" granted by the State and can be controlled. Though I can just imagine the following scenario: "We have decided that too many people drive drunk. Therefore, we will no longer allow individuals to own cars. They'll have to take public transport, with a licensed government driver. You must turn in your car by Jan 1, 2010 for it to be crushed. All commercial traffic will have to arrange to get their goods delivered via a government transporter." THAT would be legal, if political folly. Your "driving privilege" is a privilege. You know, this is another thing that regularly pisses me off. This whole theory of rights versus privileges basically says that anything which is not in the Constitution is a kindly gift from the government. The Constitution is just a law folks. The fact we are talking about the Second Amendment demonstrates that. It's subject to the same change and interpretation as any other law. No one here is suggesting banning guns, and guns are already subject to regulation. So explain to me again this difference between a "right" to shoot a gun and a "privilege" to drive a car.

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 4:04:45 PM)
So many wonderful facts. So little proof of any of them. But hey, you seem like a nice guy so I'll just take your word for it. [8\|]

Crush -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 4:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Crush I agree Steel. Driving is a "privilege" granted by the State and can be controlled. Though I can just imagine the following scenario: "We have decided that too many people drive drunk. Therefore, we will no longer allow individuals to own cars. They'll have to take public transport, with a licensed government driver. You must turn in your car by Jan 1, 2010 for it to be crushed. All commercial traffic will have to arrange to get their goods delivered via a government transporter." THAT would be legal, if political folly. Your "driving privilege" is a privilege. You know, this is another thing that regularly pisses me off. This whole theory of rights versus privileges basically says that anything which is not in the Constitution is a kindly gift from the government. The Constitution is just a law folks. The fact we are talking about the Second Amendment demonstrates that. It's subject to the same change and interpretation as any other law. No one here is suggesting banning guns, and guns are already subject to regulation. So explain to me again this difference between a "right" to shoot a gun and a "privilege" to drive a car. Ya know rule, I don't think there is hope for you if you can't see what is in a Constitution and what isn't. So yes, it is a "gift" from your government to be able to drive...a privilege to drive on the streets.

Crush -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 4:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife So many wonderful facts. So little proof of any of them. But hey, you seem like a nice guy so I'll just take your word for it. [8\|] rule, You need to go ahead and READ the links...that come from the FBI and other sources. PLENTY of proof, but yet you ignore it. Plenty of stats to back it up, if you'd bother to read the sources I've provided. But hey, trust me. Thanks. Then we are agreed. You operate on feelings and opinions...I operate on facts. Or are you going to start backing up what you state with valid studies?

Raiikun -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 6:22:30 PM)
Deleted - reading more of the thread shows this was already covered.

painpup -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 7:38:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy FR ........automobiles are not referenced in the Constitution. There's a reason for this, they weren't around. However if they had been around would they have been mentioned? After all, possession and use of a car is an important thing...especially in a country the size of the USA. Without one, you can be restricted from certain employment opportunities. The use of a car is made contingent on passing a test. The sole purpose of this test is to ensure the operator of a car knows how to use one safely. That's all. There's no political agenda, simply the idea that if you're going to take charge of a large piece of hurtling metal it's best to know how to steer and hit the breaks. Now guns were mentioned in the Constitution. They were around. Let's take it as read that they are as necessary to life as a car. Given that, why not require a small amount of training before allowing people to own and operate them? Let's say the same level of training as we require for car users. After all, unsafe operation of a gun is potentially just as dangerous as unsafe operation of a car. It's a historical accident that one was mentioned in the Constitution and one wasn't. As Marc has said earlier, an individuals rights end where anothers begins. Unsafe operation of a gun can potentialy infringe another persons rights. i'm not arguing against gun ownership...just suggesting that those who do own guns are required to know how to operate them in a manner that doesn't screw other people up. iI don't know where You live but they do offer course's on gun safty if You're a criminal You're not going to care to join or sign up and it has been said gun free zones are what out of bounds tipped over assholes seek as who's gonna fight back until police arrive

painpup -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 7:45:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife So many wonderful facts. So little proof of any of them. But hey, you seem like a nice guy so I'll just take your word for it. [8\|] he gave out figures and I tend to agree with all He wrote

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 7:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Ya know rule, I don't think there is hope for you if you can't see what is in a Constitution and what isn't. So yes, it is a "gift" from your government to be able to drive...a privilege to drive on the streets. So, what you are telling me is we have no rights other than those explicitly stated in the Constitution and we are completely at the mercy of the government to allow us to do anything else?

painpup -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 7:55:49 PM)
First I'm sorry For a loss but a Qustion was the Deed done with a legal Weapon if not why take it out on legal law abiding citizens for its been stated people if They really want a gun can get by means fair or foul and no amount of retweeking is going to stop it again sorry for Your personal loss

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 8:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush rule, You need to go ahead and READ the links...that come from the FBI and other sources. PLENTY of proof, but yet you ignore it. Plenty of stats to back it up, if you'd bother to read the sources I've provided. But hey, trust me. Thanks. Then we are agreed. You operate on feelings and opinions...I operate on facts. Or are you going to start backing up what you state with valid studies? Well I was responding to someone else, but as long as we are on the subject, you provided four links. Two from ProGun.com, which I can only assume is an objective third party analysis with no bias whatsoever. Your other two links were government statistics that you never correlated with your argument.

painpup -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 8:01:55 PM)
Mike they stated This week [ New adminstration ] that we [usa] supplies 95percent to mex cartels which wasn't true numbers fudged it was only 15 percent and I'm all for if catch em dirty ie gangs nut bags etc Jail Them so deep You' gotta pump sunlite to Them

rulemylife -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 8:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL:painpup he gave out figures and I tend to agree with all He wrote Yeah, he sure did. Gave out all kinds of facts and figures. When he proves to me that he just didn't pull them out of his ass I'll take him seriously. When I quote statistics and figures I document them, so until I see that it's anybody's guess whether they are true or not.

painpup -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 8:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL:painpup he gave out figures and I tend to agree with all He wrote Yeah, he sure did. Gave out all kinds of facts and figures. When he proves to me that he just didn't pull them out of his ass I'll take him seriously. When I quote statistics and figures I document them, so until I see that it's anybody's guess whether they are true or not. like I said in another post Numbers can be fudged all depends on Who is doing the Fudging and as far as gov't trust I havn't any well since Carter wow was that bad

BamaD -> RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment (4/23/2009 8:26:58 PM)
A nutcase in Birmingham, England did kill 15-20 people in a shopping mall armed only with a butcher knife because it was the deadlyest weapon there.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875