RE: 2nd amendment

RE: 2nd amendment (Full Version)

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/21/2012 10:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk If it is necessary to possess a gun to maintain your freedom, then it is clear that you have no freedom. well we wont need them when we create a world of sane people

OttersSwim -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/21/2012 10:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim It's pretty likely that if stricter gun control laws were in place, he might not have killed and wounded as many people...but in my view our country would be a very different place. The right to own and use guns is woven into our fabric from the very founding of the nation, the ability of the people to defy their government should it become tyrannical, implicit. However, if there is a cost to our particular brand of freedom, this is certainly part of it. Our country NEEDS to be a very different place. The nonsense about guns to overthrow the government is NRA crap. That would be treason. There is no such "escape clause." This is the cost, and it's the same mentality that allowed Ford to argue since it was cheaper to pay a few hundred funeral claims when their Pintos blew up, it was not cost effective to recall them and fix the problem. That's what needs to change. Yes, it would be treason, as it was against England. The right to keep and bear arms as written has many interpretations. But the history that follows it, clearly establishes that American citizens have always been well armed and have considered that an essential right. An America without a well armed population, would not be America, it's citizens would not be citizens, they would be subjects.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/21/2012 10:53:07 PM)
Are we armed, as a population? Or are a few making up for the rest? Please understand, I would never say we should give up our guns. I would just like some reason to enter the picture.

Real0ne -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/21/2012 11:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim Yes, it would be treason, as it was against England. The right to keep and bear arms as written has many interpretations. But the history that follows it, clearly establishes that American citizens have always been well armed and have considered that an essential right. An America without a well armed population, would not be America, it's citizens would not be citizens, they would be subjects. Nah you hear Mike and others out here with all that quack quack about "citizen" this and citizen that, because they dont know shit about the foundations of this country, There is no law says you have to be a citizen and have a US corporate franchise. first you give up most of your rights when you "pledge" (give away) "allegiance" to that rag and for what it stands (everything you have or ever will have including your body to the SOVEREIGN LORD the state) [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/subjecttoemphasis-1.jpg[/image] the power comes not from being a SUBJECT of the gubafia, but an outside contractor with the gubafia. Art. 4. § 1. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively; provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no imposition, duties, or restriction, shall be laid by any State on the property of the United States, or either of them. § 2. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offence. § 3. Full faith and credit shall be given, in each of these States, to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State. yeh only when it serves their purpose no one in this crowd has figgered that out yet ;)

tazzygirl -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 12:12:13 AM)
Oh hell, R0, the founding fathers were arguing about what they meant as constitutional way back in the day. If they didnt know, how the fuck do you know.

Winterapple -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 12:15:21 AM)
I have my grandfathers rifle and ammo in my house. I know how to load it, clean it and shoot it. And I'm not a bad shot. Does it make me feel any safer having it? No. It's not going to protect me from an invading army, a madman in a public place and most likely not from a burgler. I place more confidence in my dogs and my stiletto heels which are indeed lethal weapons helping me there. I keep it because it was my grandfathers which he used for duck hunting. He once said shooting a person would be a terrible thing to have to live with whether you killed them or or whether they had it coming or not. The men that wrote the constitution lived in a time of muskets. They couldn't forsee 19th century weaponry much less 21st century weaponry. They thought people should have a musket if they needed to form a militia. No one is going to be able to protect themselves from a modern army. I don't care how big your arsenal is or how many paranoics are living in the compund waiting on Jesus and preparing for the Lizard People, your goose is cooked. Your guns will not save you. You are outmanned and outgunned. I think basiclly I'm cool with a reasonable degree of gun ownership. But not assault rifles and the like. But I don't know that gun culture will ever change in the US. The gun lobby is powerful and has it's patter down. And gun culture plays into the paranoid streak that runs through the American psyche. Add reactionary individualism and guns aren't going anywhere. And this tragedy also points out another shortcoming in American society. The lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

Nosathro -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 12:42:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 221 years later, weapons are available that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights could not foresee. 100 years from now, who knows what kind of weaponry may be available, that could be used by an individual to harm other human beings. I am a firm believer in the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" train of though. But... As tragedies such as the one in Colorado become more common, I begin to wonder if there does, in fact, need to be a line drawn, regarding the types of weapons that can be purchased legally. I do believe that if the men who wrote the Bill of Rights were alive today, they would be the first ones to try to make changes that could stop mass killings like the one that just happened. I also know that I would be unwilling to give up the three weapons I own, because, while I have never had to even draw one on somebody, knowing I have them to protect my home and well being makes me feel a little bit safer in this insane world. So, is there any way to address the insanity that is taking over our culture, while we keep the freedom to protect our selves? Or, do we just have to continue to accept the bad, in order to hold on to the good? In spite of protestations to the contrary I can't help but there was pleanty of evidence to have prevented this if any of several people had done their jobs. His mothers first response was you have the right man. Can you imagine how much evidence of his violent inclinations had to be present for his mother to say that? Someone had to have seen what he was before this. Someone should have gotten him treated and helped. Address the evil not the tool. What now, your blaming the mother?...now that is really low and I mean really low.[:'(]

Fellow -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 4:16:35 AM)
quote: No one is going to be able to protect themselves from a modern army. I don't care how big your arsenal is or how many paranoics are living in the compund waiting on Jesus and preparing for the Lizard People, your goose is cooked. Your guns will not save you. You are outmanned and outgunned. The experiment proves otherwise. Afghans have fought two most modern armies for decades with rather primitive weapons. Today's rationale for having weapons is not an expectation the army will launch attack on you. Why should they, what is the point? It is rather an opposite: the police and army will not protect you in near future. Some PD-s in some areas have already announced not responding to certain crimes. For example Oakland, CA: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Suffer-These-Crimes-in-Oakland-Dont-Call-the-Cops-98266509.html In case of the economic collapse the government will not protect you, they will use the remaining police force to protect the elites. The US has debt per capita already higher than in Greece. The sudden economic collapse has a significant probablity. Significant enough to make a case for being prepared for it. Having firearm(s) with sufficient ammo that is not registered and well hidden could be one of the preparedness measures.

thishereboi -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 4:35:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk If it is necessary to possess a gun to maintain your freedom, then it is clear that you have no freedom. I don't feel I need to possess a gun to be free, but I am glad I have the freedom to buy one if I choose.

PeonForHer -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 5:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bishop1984 Thank God for rabid gun nuts. We need them to counteract knee jerk crybabies like most of the people in this forum. Forget it. Bishop: use your eyes. Who's doing the crying and why do you think they are doing it?

PeonForHer -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 5:43:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim. An America without a well armed population, would not be America, it's citizens would not be citizens, they would be subjects. The word 'subject' is meant to imply 'subject to the will of the monarch'. The man at the top, that is. I think anyone would be hard put to convince us that in America there is no man at the top or, if there is, nobody is subject to the will of him. The difference between 'citizen' and 'subject' in the USA lost any practical meaning centuries ago, as far as I can see. That's if it had any meaning in the first place.

Musicmystery -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 6:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD yep and you are still wrong. Your usual compelling "argument."

Musicmystery -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 6:24:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim The right to keep and bear arms as written has many interpretations. But the history that follows it, clearly establishes that American citizens have always been well armed and have considered that an essential right. An America without a well armed population, would not be America, it's citizens would not be citizens, they would be subjects. Fantasies, not interpretations. The rest of the industrialized world seems to do well as citizen "subjects." It's a mental deficiency in the American mindset.

Musicmystery -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 6:25:26 AM)
quote: Are we armed, as a population? Or are a few making up for the rest? Bingo.

Yachtie -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 6:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Wrong on both counts. We already went down this road. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD yep and you are still wrong. Your usual compelling "argument." Two compelling arguments having a discussion. Lovely[8\|] [sm=popcorn.gif]

stellauk -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 6:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk If it is necessary to possess a gun to maintain your freedom, then it is clear that you have no freedom. I don't feel I need to possess a gun to be free, but I am glad I have the freedom to buy one if I choose. I have that same freedom to buy a gun if I choose. The only difference is in making that choice I am also choosing to break the law. However the same freedom exists. But then again why would I want to buy a gun? Or feel the need to possess one?

Musicmystery -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 6:34:27 AM)
You're another one. There's no point in wasting time on a one-sided discussion, when the other party is simply arguing "Nope, you're wrong," with no points or support. That's trying to argue with a kid at recess. Pointless. If you come up with supported points, share them.

hot4bondage -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 7:06:12 AM)
~FR~ I keep hearing that muskets were the most dangerous weapon when the Constitution was passed. What about cannons?

igor2003 -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 7:07:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: stellauk If it is necessary to possess a gun to maintain your freedom, then it is clear that you have no freedom. I don't feel I need to possess a gun to be free, but I am glad I have the freedom to buy one if I choose. I have that same freedom to buy a gun if I choose. The only difference is in making that choice I am also choosing to break the law. However the same freedom exists. But then again why would I want to buy a gun? Or feel the need to possess one? You are talking about an ability, not a freedom. If doing something means you have to break a law to do it, it is not a freedom. I have the ability to commit a robbery. That does not make robbery a freedom. Why would you want to buy a gun? It is evident that you don't want to, so no one is forcing you to. That is a freedom...the right to do as you choose WITHOUT breaking a law. Not everyone feels a need...or desire...to own a firearm. In the U.S.we have the right to decide for ourselves as to whether to buy one or not. It's pretty evident that you are not a hunter and that you live in a relatively low crime area and that you have great faith in the ability of local law enforcement agencies to protect you under all circumstances. That is not the case with all U.S. citizens. It is probably not the case with all U.K. citizens either. You should feel fortunate.

Lucylastic -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 7:07:24 AM)
hard on the pockets[8\|]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875