RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (Full Version)

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

Message

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL:. Staleek I really hate this. I really do. I find it intellectually offensive. Seriously though, does any rational person give a shit? You obviously give a shit though. I'm not sure why any rational person from the UK would give a shit about our laws or why it's even any of their bees wax. What I find intellectually offensive is the notion you could "just take the 2nd Amendment and rub it the fuck out" in such a way. I'm laughing at that....dumb dumb dumb...... [sarcasm]Yeah right, I'll toss 'em all in the back of my pickup truck and head straight away down the police station.[/sarcasm] Maybe you could walk us through this Second Amendment rub out step by step and tell us how it's supposed to work in real life. I give a shit about life. I don't give a shit about a 200 year old sentence written by men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into. Gun amnesties have worked in Australia and the UK. Gun buybacks have worked in Brazil and Argentina. Most Americans are smart enough to, you know, make it to the police station. Maybe look it up and drive there in a car? One thing is for sure - if you aren't capable of safely securing your weapon, getting into a car, and safely driving to the local police station you have fucking business owning a gun anyway. OK Great !!! You give a shit about American lives. Oh thank you so much. So you don't give a shit about a 200 year old sentence written by men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into ?? I happen to give a shit about that sentence and all the other 200 year old sentences in that document. Those men who had absolutely no concept of what muskets would eventually turn into didn't like standing armies. They had no concept of the modern military and the military industrial complex. They had no concept of the internet. But the concept of an armed populace to thwart tyranny is as valid today as it was back then. Whether or not our military would shoot or bomb its own citizens in support of a tyrannical government, as you suggested in post #56, remains to be seen. I highly doubt it. As long as we retain the right to bear arms, we will never need it for its intended purpose. Gun buy backs ?? Easy peasy ?? You don't get it. We are not like Australia or the UK. Very few American gun owners will turn in their guns, even in the face of draconian gun bans. Half the big city po!ice officers and almost all of the rural law enforcement organizations are against gun bans. They won't enforce these types of laws. Gun buybacks in this country are a joke. Most of the guns being turned in (for a paltry sum I might add) are junk. Unless they're idiots, no one is going to turn in quality firearms. It's not the culture of the UK here. ETA: The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work: Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem.Home Depot. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction. Everything you need to manufacture firearms is available at Home Depot. The materials needed to manufacture a 12 gauge shotgun cost about $20. If someone wanted to build a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun, it would probably cost about $60. Every electrician, plumber, and handyman in the country has the materials necessary to manufacture firearms in their shop. The items are completely unregulated. They aren’t like the chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamines. How is the battle against that black market working out? We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality. Firearms are the Pandora’s Box of the United States. The box is open, it can’t be closed through legislation. If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society. You can’t blame an inanimate object that’s availability has absolutely no correlation to murder and expect to end violence. http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

Dvr22999874 -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:40:48 PM)
I appreciate that Bama...................I was just thinking of saraah about a month ago was looking at a pic of a Russian RPG and asked me which end the bullets came out of smile. This is the same woman who can probably drive a damn sight better than me and a lot of the other lunatics on the roads here .

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:45:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I appreciate that Bama...................I was just thinking of saraah about a month ago was looking at a pic of a Russian RPG and asked me which end the bullets came out of smile. This is the same woman who can probably drive a damn sight better than me and a lot of the other lunatics on the roads here . Lol She doesn't care about firearms. I would expect that if she suddenly found one that someone (for whatever reason) had dropped on your porch she would call the police and let them handle it. I would, and I know how to handle them properly. Reasonable people do reasonable things and to quote Dirty Harry, "A good man (person) knows his (their) limitations".

Dvr22999874 -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 5:48:09 PM)
I had to explain to her that it wasn't a blunderbuss, volley-gun or Norfolk punt-gun.................it fired a rocket. she was amazed that such things even existed LOL. I wish I was still that bloody innocent at times smile.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I had to explain to her that it wasn't a blunderbuss, volley-gun or Norfolk punt-gun.................it fired a rocket. she was amazed that such things even existed LOL. I wish I was still that bloody innocent at times smile. Yes, I understand, and if she doesn't care about them and doesn't want one that is her choice, or at least it would be here. My point wasn't that anyone who doesn't know how to handle firearms safely automatically can't drive, but that driving is more complicated than firearms safety. And that people who are careless with firearms are likely to be careless with cars, steak knives, and matches.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:09:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I had to explain to her that it wasn't a blunderbuss, volley-gun or Norfolk punt-gun.................it fired a rocket. she was amazed that such things even existed LOL. I wish I was still that bloody innocent at times smile. I have had people tell me all kinds of ridiculous things about firearms. I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. And unlike Saraah they claimed (because they read an anti gun web site) that they knew all about firearms. The people like that are the ones who irritate me. You have your view and you act accordingly but you don't spout stupid stuff and talk down to people because we don't agree. I suspect that you know that the Chinese and Koreans were using rocket launchers centuries before the first firearm.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:26:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made. I remember the claims I made, and the lies you told about them. You are a nutsucker welfare patient. Then you remeber saying that the 2nd was to allow for militias. And you have yet to provide any evidence thay I am A On welfare or B A patient So quit liyimg or SFT I do say the 2nd was to allow for militias, and you might want to learn to read and write at a 2nd grade level. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free Stat e , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed You can say that all you want. Right or wrong it still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the same thing, with or without the militia clause. They could have written, because we want a secure state, and because we want a prepared militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It still means the same thing. No, lets look at it this way. I have done due diligence and say without any doubt there is no truth to the notion, lovmuffin is a convicted child molester. remove before the comma, ignore it, and tell me it means the same thing. Not even close there Scooter. Try it this way: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of mnottertail to molest children, shall not be infringed. The right of mnottertail to molest children, shall not be infringed. Explain how giving a reason for your right to molest children is any different than if the sentence stands alone. Nope, not even close non-English speaking cretin, you have four clauses there. You have demonstrated to everyone here (and that includes some really shitbreathing douchbag cretinous nutsuckers) that you are incapable of using and cogitating English at more than a pre-speech infantile level. So, one of sub-human intellect and total artlessness dealt with. Explain the first clause and why it was thought to be part of the sentence by those who wrote it and legalized it, ifthe other stands alone.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:33:07 PM)
Yes Bama, I knew that and the strange thing is that I am reading a book right now that mentions that fact...................it tells about the great chinese treasure fleets circumnavigating the world and the places the visited, traded with and colonised back in the 15th century. It's a very interesting read called '1421' by a bloke called Gavin Menzies. Don't spruik it around too much though or you may find our Chinese readers claiming Australia, New Zealand, The United States and a whole bunch of other places smile.

lovmuffin -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 6:39:27 PM)
It makes no sense what so ever conversing with you vile critter parts. I'm done with it. Cretinous, which you have demonstrated to everyone here, is that you are incapable of using and cogitating English with more than filthy gutter level nutsucker crap. You are the quintessential definition of nutsucker.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 7:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch. Never???? You claim that it is only for the militia, you have to try to remember the claims you have made. I remember the claims I made, and the lies you told about them. You are a nutsucker welfare patient. Then you remeber saying that the 2nd was to allow for militias. And you have yet to provide any evidence thay I am A On welfare or B A patient So quit liyimg or SFT I do say the 2nd was to allow for militias, and you might want to learn to read and write at a 2nd grade level. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free Stat e , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed You can say that all you want. Right or wrong it still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means the same thing, with or without the militia clause. They could have written, because we want a secure state, and because we want a prepared militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It still means the same thing. No, lets look at it this way. I have done due diligence and say without any doubt there is no truth to the notion, lovmuffin is a convicted child molester. remove before the comma, ignore it, and tell me it means the same thing. Not even close there Scooter. Try it this way: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of mnottertail to molest children, shall not be infringed. The right of mnottertail to molest children, shall not be infringed. Explain how giving a reason for your right to molest children is any different than if the sentence stands alone. Nope, not even close non-English speaking cretin, you have four clauses there. You have demonstrated to everyone here (and that includes some really shitbreathing douchbag cretinous nutsuckers) that you are incapable of using and cogitating English at more than a pre-speech infantile level. So, one of sub-human intellect and total artlessness dealt with. Explain the first clause and why it was thought to be part of the sentence by those who wrote it and legalized it, ifthe other stands alone. And you have handled that argument in your usual, ineffectual way. Thank you for disturbing those electrons. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 7:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It makes no sense what so ever conversing with you vile critter parts. I'm done with it. Cretinous, which you have demonstrated to everyone here, is that you are incapable of using and cogitating English with more than filthy gutter level nutsucker crap. You are the quintessential definition of nutsucker. Oh come on. It is like you bitching that a cassette tape deck has hiss. Guess who is the hiss. T^T

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 7:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It makes no sense what so ever conversing with you vile critter parts. I'm done with it. Cretinous, which you have demonstrated to everyone here, is that you are incapable of using and cogitating English with more than filthy gutter level nutsucker crap. You are the quintessential definition of nutsucker. See you later buffoon, you are incapable of pre-speech, and your cogitation is equivalent to an ice cube. You win the best felcher award for the day.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 8:54:51 PM)
And Ron=tape hiss. T^T

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 8:59:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I appreciate that Bama...................I was just thinking of saraah about a month ago was looking at a pic of a Russian RPG and asked me which end the bullets came out of smile. This is the same woman who can probably drive a damn sight better than me and a lot of the other lunatics on the roads here . I know what you mean, I used to be based in the DC area and the drivers there made me look like Mario Andretti, and I am not talking about how fast I drove.

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 9:05:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves?

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 9:07:47 PM)
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or WTF. First of all, come and get it motherfucker. James cagney? Most of us are not goddamn so stupid just to give up such a useful tool. Besides killing someone, what exactly can you do with it?

thompsonx -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 9:11:15 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 9:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD I try not to be condesending when explaining for example that one reason I don't keep the safety of my revolver on is that they don't have one. Not according to tom clancy. It doesn't surprise me that some revolver somewhere may have a saftey, but none that I have ever had or seen have had one. The fact that you found the exception in no way changes the basic rule of thumb.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/8/2016 9:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. Why should they have recieved any representation for the slaves? Because without the compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified, surely you know that.

DaddySatyr -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/9/2016 12:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It makes no sense what so ever conversing with you vile critter parts. I'm done with it. Cretinous, which you have demonstrated to everyone here, is that you are incapable of using and cogitating English with more than filthy gutter level nutsucker crap. You are the quintessential definition of nutsucker. Dude, trying to understand some people is like trying to smell the color "9" Michael

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125