joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
The writers intended for an individual to pose a weapon that could fire 30 musket rounds in 4-6 seconds, reload with a full 30 musket rounds in 4-6 seconds, accurate to about 300+ yards, and penetrate fairly deeply into the human body if not 'blow through' it?
Another lie you have swallowed. They intended for civilians to have whatever was available, they even allowed artillery pieces
BULLSHIT!
I'm not lying on two accounts:
1 ) The Founding Fathers did exist. Not only that, but their understanding of technology, and 2015 firearm technology are two very different things. Further, none of them (known currently) could predict the future with perfect accuracy.
2 ) There are firearms that could fire 30 bullets in 4-6 seconds. Reload in 4-6 seconds. Accurate to 300+ years. Penetrate and even 'blow through' human flesh. And you know this too! We could list of many firearms that could do any one of these and even some of the others.
Civilians could have artillery pieces....ONLY....through the militia. And not any sort of militia, but "A Well Regulated Militia...". Do you even realize how far from reality you have to go to make some of your arguments 'sound' sane? Would the Founding Fathers be 'OK' with a lunatic with a gun?
Go ahead, try to say 'yes'.
Read it again.
Your reading of my post is as good as your reading of the 2nd.
I said you had swallowed a lie.
To those of us who speak English that means you believed it.
If you believed it then you weren't lying, just wrong.
Again, I am not lying on either account. Or do AR-15's not exist in 2015? And they can not fire full auto?
SOURCE #1
For your bullshit to be correct, you have to disprove the guy in the video does not exist. That all the events that take place, have NEVER taken place in reality. Good Luck....
You and many on the right, have accepted a total lie for political purposes. You know everything I've stated on this post and the immediate previous one are true and factual. You just can not admit it. Why is that?
You have a conflict of interest!
Therefore, your arguments are not as reliable and/or credible as mine. I have nothing to gain if Americans followed the 2nd amendment as it was intended, or the 'fucked up' version that allows mass murders to take place every few days in America. Dont get me wrong, I like to shoot guns the same as the next. I didn't write the law, nor voted upon it, BamaD. Stop blaming me for either or, which is what your doing. And I don't think your consciously aware of it until now.
Since you believe that it applies only to police, and only to muskets clearly means you think the police should be limited to muskets.
WOW....your train of thought did not just derail, it cartwheeled down the track as one long line......
I mention the local police, because that would be the most logical, modern idea to the 18th century militia. An you know this too. Your an intelligent guy, BamaD. Can we dispense with the bullshit here?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no more conflict of interest than you and clearly have far more knowledge of the subject than you. You are defining conflict of interest as anyone who disagrees with you. The fact that you declare it to be so in no way makes it true, I doubt that you realized this until now. Must come from the indoctrination of the PRoM.
A conflict of interest is one someone stands to gain from some action or event taking place. Usually a financial gain, but there are religious, political, and ethnic gains. If the 2nd amendment were to be used as written, you would no longer have the 'protections' you are arguing to exist by the 2nd. This would mean your currently benefiting of gain from a topic. Hence, a conflict of interest.
I gain nothing by the 2nd amendment being voided, modified to allow individuals with firearms, or being limited just to the modern day equivalent of the 18th century militia (i.e. the local police department).
I acknowledge that I dislike mass murders by individuals whom can easily obtain firearms. That I dislike watching the nation slowly tear itself to pieces because those disagreeing with me, do not have a feasible counter argument to those I've already made. An example of one of those previous arguments:
If you can ignore and/or reinterpret the 2nd, why can't I, or the federal government do that with any of the other amendments? Not one of you (Yourself BamaD, HunterCA, or Kirata) have stated: Yeah, its 'OK' for the federal government to ignore parts and/or reinterpret other amendments as is politically useful/convenient to them. If I had to give an educated guess, it would be 'No'. Which would then mean you can not ignore and/or reinterpret the 2nd amendment to your political conveniences.
Not a single counter argument here.
|
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread