RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 10:44:35 AM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

Something to consider

http://autos.aol.com/article/gun-deaths-will-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015-study-says/

(in reply to Nosathro)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 10:58:58 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads.

Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns.....

...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads.

It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear.
The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right?

Being [a] so-called militia or a member thereof...IS the condition under which one's right to bear arms...could not be infringed. So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms.

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

(in reply to imdoingitagain)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 11:08:19 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I loathe them...

Has it occurred to you that feelings like this (and clearly you are not alone) make someone's input on gun-control about as useful as the views of a white supremacist on race relations?

K.

No, that hadn't occurred to me because, to me, it's nonsense. However, if you want to explain why it makes sense to you, please do so.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 11:24:28 AM

Posts: 699
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

And if anyone has any suggestions on dealing with wild hogs, I am open to hearing it. What is being done all over the US is not having much impact.

Our feral pigs are normally ridden down with horses and lances. They stay out of the woods and jungle because jaguars really like eating pigs. My lance is about three meters long, the blade is about a half meter of spring steel and "leaf" shaped. While sport hunting is prohibited, they are not consider game animals and anyone can kill them any way they can, and the meat goes to those killing them, normally a quarter goes to the priest for the poor, and the rest gets roasted at a party.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 12:11:15 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

The party could be seen as noblesse oblige: the upkeep on a horse is a lot more than you'll pay for a shotgun, after all.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to YN)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 12:58:24 PM

Posts: 699
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The party could be seen as noblesse oblige: the upkeep on a horse is a lot more than you'll pay for a shotgun, after all.

We maintain the horses anyway, and the feral pigs are very serious trouble that needs to be dealt with, and have been since the first one jumped off the Spanish ship 500 years ago.

There was a reason boar hunting regularly went on in Europe years ago.

But in our environment, catching up with them is the hard part, they are intelligent animals and know when they are hunted, you likely could kill one with a .22 pistol as easily as the lance, once you ride up on it. A lance kills one very quickly if used properly., and does not damage the flesh like a powerful firearm does.

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 1:15:11 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads.

Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns.....

...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads.

It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear.
The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right?

Being [a] so-called militia or a member thereof...IS the condition under which one's right to bear arms...could not be infringed. So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms.

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

The 2nd Amendment is archaic. The US Department of Defense and the US Military have superceded the need for a militia. The whole pro gun argument is based on a useless Amendment. As archaic as Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 which empowers Congress to build post roads. FFS!!

< Message edited by vincentML -- 1/31/2013 1:16:06 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 1:25:30 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The party could be seen as noblesse oblige: the upkeep on a horse is a lot more than you'll pay for a shotgun, after all.

We maintain the horses anyway, and the feral pigs are very serious trouble that needs to be dealt with, and have been since the first one jumped off the Spanish ship 500 years ago.

There was a reason boar hunting regularly went on in Europe years ago.

But in our environment, catching up with them is the hard part, they are intelligent animals and know when they are hunted, you likely could kill one with a .22 pistol as easily as the lance, once you ride up on it. A lance kills one very quickly if used properly., and does not damage the flesh like a powerful firearm does.

Which is definitely going to be a plus if you fancy a barbecue later...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to YN)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 1:41:40 PM

imdoingitagain

Posts: 77
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads.

Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns.....

...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads.

It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear.
The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right?

Being [a] so-called militia or a member thereof...IS the condition under which one's right to bear arms...could not be infringed. So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms.

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

There's obviously going to be no discussing this with you...

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 1:47:02 PM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

< Message edited by Yachtie -- 1/31/2013 1:51:31 PM >

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 2:05:34 PM

imdoingitagain

Posts: 77
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

See, now, you have legitimized his earlier statement which has no basis and he'll consider that a victory. I refuse to do such. His entire premise is based off of a "fact" which isn't even true.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 2:16:35 PM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

See, now, you have legitimized his earlier statement which has no basis and he'll consider that a victory. I refuse to do such. His entire premise is based off of a "fact" which isn't even true.

Doesn't matter. His own argument destroys any gun control advocacy he makes.

This statement of his - So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms - is facially false as he cannot be anything but one of The People. To state otherwise is a baseless claim.

I applaud his victory

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to imdoingitagain)

Profile

Post #: 52

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 2:27:08 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Hey, bad arguments or not a gun control law does not violate the 2nd amendment.

Nevertheless, still much ado about nothing.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 53

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 2:45:20 PM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hey, bad arguments or not a gun control law does not violate the 2nd amendment.

Nevertheless, still much ado about nothing.

You recognize a bad argument? I'm shocked

(think I'd better go lay down for a spell. I'm feeling faint

)

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 54

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 2:48:53 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Sure, I read your lame shit all the time.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 55

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 2:49:35 PM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force

http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 56

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 3:00:22 PM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force

http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

From Wiki -

... Some of the ways the term is used include:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

Nothing has changed. The Militia is. Your protestations being an infringement by device.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Nosathro)

Profile

Post #: 57

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 3:14:35 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Well, under the first two we are fucked.

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.

No draft.

The third definition is iffy as well.

You are hurting the fuck outta that argument, you are gonna fuck around and get us all caught, Yachtie.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 58

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 3:41:26 PM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force

http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

From Wiki -

... Some of the ways the term is used include:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

Nothing has changed. The Militia is. Your protestations being an infringement by device.

You are using defenitions of words...not law....two different things...I am not protesting..I am proving my arguement..and done so successfully.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 59

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 1/31/2013 3:42:40 PM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void.

The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force

http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

From Wiki -

... Some of the ways the term is used include:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

Nothing has changed. The Militia is. Your protestations being an infringement by device.

You are using defenitions of words...not law....two different things...I am not protesting..I am proving my arguement..and done so successfully.

Now I have to go the welfare office and get my food stamps then get some T-bone steaks.....