Jump to content

A Well Regulated Militia...


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Scout said:

As long as we don't count Jefferson as a founding father, I didn't provide any quotes.  :lol: :lol: :lol:  :lol: :lol: :lol: 

You provided no quote from Jefferson.   You quoted an edit in the Virginia State Constitution.    You have no idea who put it in there. 

And even that didn't support your bullshit.    

Why lie? 

 

 

This is why you're my bitch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is a gun nutter? And yes, the constitution says we may arm ourselves with whatever firearm we want .  Would you like to rewrite the constitution? To bend it to fit YOUR feelings ?  fuck your

sad Scout doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment... the bitch doesn't realize that without the 2nd you don't have the 1st.

Yes, they did.  

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

 

The article is far from cogent or factual.  It glosses over inconvenient facts, or ignores them outright.

 

 

If so, then those who believe that changing times require a different policy need to advocate for an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Even then, it would not necessarily enable gun control, as the Ninth Amendment might well block it.

 

We have a right to self-defense.  Any law that might hamper our exercise of that right can be argued to be unconstitutional; as well as immoral.  

 

As for the suicides mentioned, we need better mental health services; not gun control.

No, as the conservative Supreme Court decided, gun control is definitely what the founding fathers ORIGINALLY INTENDED --- so sayeth Scalia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spartan said:

 

The article is far from cogent or factual.  It glosses over inconvenient facts, or ignores them outright.

 

 

If so, then those who believe that changing times require a different policy need to advocate for an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Even then, it would not necessarily enable gun control, as the Ninth Amendment might well block it.

 

We have a right to self-defense.  Any law that might hamper our exercise of that right can be argued to be unconstitutional; as well as immoral.  

 

As for the suicides mentioned, we need better mental health services; not gun control.\

I suggest that an AR-15 with over a dozen bullets is really a practical weapon for self-defense. It is not likely that anyone keeps one under their pillow or at their bedside.
 
We know that we are not going to see Congress provide  any improved mental health services. They do not even advertise regularly where services are provided.
And then there are dozens of children that shoot each other or themselves because some gun nut left his trusty roscoe laying around. 
The fact is, that the more guns are in circulation, the more people are going to get shot.
If guns are kept dry, they will outlive their responsible owners and end up in the hands of people who are not responsible.
 
It is utterly laughable to claim that preventing some fool to own dozens of assault rifles is immoral. IMMORAL? Come on, that is just stupid.
I do not expect the government will do anything much.  We will continue to shoot one another and claim that it is somehow necessary. 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Scout said:

No, as the conservative Supreme Court decided, gun control is definitely what the founding fathers ORIGINALLY INTENDED --- so sayeth Scalia.

And still no quote from the Founding Fathers to support your ignorant claims. 

This is why you'll always be my bitch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:
I suggest that an AR-15 with over a dozen bullets is really a practical weapon for self-defense. It is not likely that anyone keeps one under their pillow or at their bedside.

Homeowner's son kills three would-be burglars with AR-15   

Oklahoma Man Uses AR-15 to Kill Three Teen Home Intruders

A 15 year old boy used his dad’s AR-15 to defend himself and his sister from home invaders in Texas.

A store owner used an AR-15 to fight off multiple suspects who drove a vehicle into his store.

A private security guard used an AR-15 to stop a violent armed robbery being carried out by multiple suspects and it was caught on video.

A homeowner in North Carolina confronted an armed home invader using his AR-15

A Pennsylvania homeowner used an AR-15 to stop a home invader who was high on drugs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

And still no quote from the Founding Fathers to support your ignorant claims. 

This is why you'll always be my bitch.

 

Scalia wasn't a Founding Father.

I quoted Jefferson.  He WAS one.

 

YOu are one dumb MF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The technology of firearms that are available today makes the founding fathers irrelevant. It is like speculating what Ben Franklin might have believes about airport security or highway traffic laws.

 

Years ago, I had a gig helping a French Canadian named Michel Champagne improve his English speaking skills enough so he could pass a  boat pilot's license. He had a serious Pepe le Pew type accent and could not pronounce an H at all. His accent made me expect he would pull out an oar and sing 'Aloutte, Gentil Alouette' like a true voyageur. 

 

It seems that a lot of rich Canadians own yachts and like to bring them down to Florida in the winter but lack the piloting skills or perhaps the gumption to captain them by themselves, so this is a well-paying job and especially fun when the owner flie down and the pilot and crew have the yacht all to themselves (and tend to invite got friends galore to their parties abord ship.. I could not get Michel to practice his diction with the tapes I made for him, so this took about four months. 

 

One day, Michel showed me his gun collection. In one room of the house there was a fancy chest  filled with guns. The said there were 27 rifles, pistols and shotguns and even a crossbow. This was back in the early 1980's, and he had bought these guns here and there from people he met in waterfront bars and such. None of his guns were registered.

 

A month later, someone broke into the house (it was a fancy place owned by a Montreal tycoon that was decorated like a New Orleans brothel, with maroon brocade wallpaper,). and stole all of Michel's guns, including the crossbow. He had several suspects in mind, bit of course did not report it because the guns were not registered and I don't think Michel was here legally, either. They did not even bother to steal his VCR, which was what every burglar was stealing in those days.)

 

And one day, Michel passed his pilot's test, and was even pronouncing his H's. 

 

I have often wondered whether his guns rifles and shotguns ended up in the hands of Good Guys with Guns or in the county evidence room.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

The technology of firearms that are available today makes the founding fathers irrelevant. It is like speculating what Ben Franklin might have believes about airport security or highway traffic laws.

 

Years ago, I had a gig helping a French Canadian named Michel Champagne improve his English speaking skills enough so he could pass a  boat pilot's license. He had a serious Pepe le Pew type accent and could not pronounce an H at all. His accent made me expect he would pull out an oar and sing 'Aloutte, Gentil Alouette' like a true voyageur. 

 

It seems that a lot of rich Canadians own yachts and like to bring them down to Florida in the winter but lack the piloting skills or perhaps the gumption to captain them by themselves, so this is a well-paying job and especially fun when the owner flie down and the pilot and crew have the yacht all to themselves (and tend to invite got friends galore to their parties abord ship.. I could not get Michel to practice his diction with the tapes I made for him, so this took about four months. 

 

One day, Michel showed me his gun collection. In one room of the house there was a fancy chest  filled with guns. The said there were 27 rifles, pistols and shotguns and even a crossbow. This was back in the early 1980's, and he had bought these guns here and there from people he met in waterfront bars and such. None of his guns were registered.

 

A month later, someone broke into the house (it was a fancy place owned by a Montreal tycoon that was decorated like a New Orleans brothel, with maroon brocade wallpaper,). and stole all of Michel's guns, including the crossbow. He had several suspects in mind, bit of course did not report it because the guns were not registered and I don't think Michel was here legally, either. They did not even bother to steal his VCR, which was what every burglar was stealing in those days.)

 

And one day, Michel passed his pilot's test, and was even pronouncing his H's. 

 

I have often wondered whether his guns rifles and shotguns ended up in the hands of Good Guys with Guns or in the county evidence room.

 

Academic Communist malcontent.

 

You, Comrade, are the irrelevant one.

 

Don't like the Constitution of the United States?

1. Change it.

or

2. Leave (and I'll help you pack.)

 

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scout said:

No, as the conservative Supreme Court decided, gun control is definitely what the founding fathers ORIGINALLY INTENDED --- so sayeth Scalia.

 

Well, I don't give a rat's ass about what Scalia said.  I fervently disagreed with the majority of the man's positions, for one thing.  For another, I find it laughable that he created a ruling that acknowledged a right that was intended to not be infringed and then twisted himself in knots creating rationales for government to infringe upon it!  As is the case with Heller and Citizens United the courts did nothing but create more opportunities for government and monied interests to maintain their stranglehold on power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:
I suggest that an AR-15 with over a dozen bullets is really a practical weapon for self-defense. It is not likely that anyone keeps one under their pillow or at their bedside.

 

Actually, it's one of the most practical weapons available today for self-defense.  Shorter and lighter and more maneuverable than a shotgun, with less recoil and greater precision, it makes a far superior weapon.  Loaded correctly with expanding self-defense ammunition, a 5.56/.223 caliber carbine is far less likely to overpenetrate the exterior walls of a house than even a pistol round, thus produces less risk to neighbors.  My wife and I have a lockable, quick release cabinet next to our bed where the carbine is kept; she is far more effective with it than with a shotgun too.

 

14 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:
We know that we are not going to see Congress provide  any improved mental health services. They do not even advertise regularly where services are provided.

 

And that is nothing short of reprehensible.

 

15 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:
It is utterly laughable to claim that preventing some fool to own dozens of assault rifles is immoral. IMMORAL? Come on, that is just stupid.

 

So, what other Constitutional rights should we throw out the window because some group or other thinks that right creates danger for the populace?

 

When an American citizen dies, having been denied their right to defend themselves by their own government, that is immoral.  That's not "stupid"; it's just plain fact.

 

15 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:
I do not expect the government will do anything much.  We will continue to shoot one another and claim that it is somehow necessary. 

 

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop relying on others to take responsibility for us.  Maybe we, as individual citizens, should take responsibility for ourselves and demand that government pursue sanctions and controls against those individuals who fail to take responsibility for themselves; not just enact blanket infringements on basic constitutional rights because we don't have the moral character to live up to our obligations as free citizens.

 

14 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

The technology of firearms that are available today makes the founding fathers irrelevant. It is like speculating what Ben Franklin might have believes about airport security or highway traffic laws.

 

Sorry, but this statement is personally offensive to me.  "Makes the founding fathers irrelevant"??  Give me a break.  So, let's just throw the whole Constitution out the window, right?  Yeah, over my dead body.

 

If you genuinely think that the Constitution is "irrelevant", then advocate for a Constitutional Amendment.  You can't just ignore the Constitution because you find it inconvenient!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The technology of firearms that are available today makes the founding fathers irrelevant.

Wrong.  The technology of firearms is very old technology, and very similar in function to what was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.  Today's firearms are a bit more mechanized; they use cartridges rather than separate projectile components, and the propellant is nitrocellulose rather than black powder.  Still, there has been very little change in the capability of firearms since the late 1800's when Hugh Borchardt invented the modern day semi-automatic handgun.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you genuinely think that the Constitution is "irrelevant", then advocate for a Constitutional Amendment.  You can't just ignore the Constitution because you find it inconvenient!

Am I ignoring the Constitution?

Well, I am not attempting to seize your beloved rifles and guns, so no. I am not. I am employing my right to speak freely.

 

When you -or anyone--keep blathering about "what other rights am I going to take away that is just a dumb slippery slope argument and demonstrates that you lack debating skills. Look up "Logical Fallacy" and become less ignorant. 

 

I am saying that allowing people to own entire arsenals of military weapons is NOT what anyone had in mind in 1778, and if it did, they were wrong. I will vote for stricter gun control whenever and however I get the chance.

 

This is a question of public safety, ie my right not to be massacred at the mall. It is not a moral issue.

Owning a gun or not owning a gun is not a moral issue.

 

If you are "personally offended" by what I wrote, then you are prone to make dumb statements, of which that is one.

I think that we should abolish the Electoral College and have proportional  representation as well.

I practice my  personal responsibility  by not owning any firearms that could be stolen.

The fact remains that the more firearms are in circulation in this country, the more people are going to die from bullet wounds.

If you want to debate something, debate that.

 

Quote

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you genuinely think that the Constitution is "irrelevant", then advocate for a Constitutional Amendment.  You can't just ignore the Constitution because you find it inconvenient!

  • Am I ignoring the Constitution?
  • Well, I am not attempting to seize your beloved rifles and guns, so no. I am not. I am employing my right to spewak freely.

When you -or anyone--keep blathering about "what other rights am I going to take away that is just a dumb slippery slope argument and demonstrates that you lack debating skills. Look up "LOgical Fallacy" and become less ignorant. 

  • I am saying that allowing people to own entire arsenals of military weapons is NOT what anyone had in mind in 1778, and if it did, they were wrong. I will vote for stricter gun control whenever and however I get the chance.

This is a question of public safety, ie my right not to be massacred at the mall. It is not a moral issue.

Owning a gun or not owning a gun is not a moral issue.

 

If you are "personally offended" by what I wrote, then you are prone to make dumb statements, of which that is one.

  • I think that we should abolish the Electoral College and have proportional  representation as well.
  • I practice my  personal responsibility  by not owning any firearms that could be stolen.

The fact remains that the more firearms ar in circulation in this country, the more people are going to die from bullet wounds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spartan said:

 

Well, I don't give a rat's ass about what Scalia said.  I fervently disagreed with the majority of the man's positions, for one thing.  For another, I find it laughable that he created a ruling that acknowledged a right that was intended to not be infringed and then twisted himself in knots creating rationales for government to infringe upon it!  As is the case with Heller and Citizens United the courts did nothing but create more opportunities for government and monied interests to maintain their stranglehold on power.

I WANT the gov't to put a stranglehold on military grade arms sales to civilians.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody ever noticed that when Republicans can't defend their stance they always attack grammar as a diversion?

 

For example, claiming a blastocyst is a BABY.

Claiming you can't call a person a person, you must call them a "BORN PERSON"

 

the phrase "assault weapon" - claiming it is humanly impossible for it to have a definition.  (yes, THAT stupid)

==========================

 

Definitely a strain of stupidity running thru the people that try to discuss those issues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Xavier: I will vote for stricter gun control whenever and however I get the chance.

This is the message about Democrats and Socialists that must get out to all gun owners, even potential gun owners or just defenders of freedom, regardless of their current political persuasion.  Right here - this statement ^^^^.  It says a lot

 

It is the reason I personally buy guns, ammo, and any gun related stuff that Antis, like Xavier, hate.  The more people who own guns, ammo, gun parts, and gun related stuff, the safer we all are from people like Xavier.  Quantity and wide disbursement of guns and gun related things whcih the Antis hate is what gives us the power to combat their lunacy.  It requires the Lefties, when they regain power, to act with force against all of us in implementing their bans, etc.  Simple laws will not then solve their perceived problem.  And, force comes with a very heavy price, one which I know Xavier is not willing to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Golfboy said:

You provided no quote from Jefferson.   You quoted an edit in the Virginia State Constitution.    You have no idea who put it in there. 

And even that didn't support your bullshit.    

Why lie? 

 

 

This is why you're my bitch.

 

 

18 hours ago, Golfboy said:

You provided no quote from Jefferson.   You quoted an edit in the Virginia State Constitution.    You have no idea who put it in there. 

And even that didn't support your bullshit.    

Why lie? 

 

 

This is why you're my bitch.

 

Yes, Jefferson's home legislature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 12:39 AM, bigsky said:

the boy is shooting a 300 win mag...I shoot a 7 mag. we are gonna work on 7 and 800 yards one of these days....start getting dialed in. I have to get out to 1/2 moa at a thousand yards so I can show cannon that the earth is indeed round

Says "the right of the PEOPLE", not individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Scout said:

I WANT the gov't to put a stranglehold on military grade arms sales to civilians.   

 

Such a stranglehold already exists.  It's called the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

If you want to "put a stranglehold" on conventional, semi-automatic-only firearms, then you need to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment to make it possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spartan said:

 

Such a stranglehold already exists.  It's called the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

If you want to "put a stranglehold" on conventional, semi-automatic-only firearms, then you need to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment to make it possible.

Obviously not else there would not have been an assault weapons ban just a few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Such a stranglehold already exists.  It's called the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

If you want to "put a stranglehold" on conventional, semi-automatic-only firearms, then you need to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment to make it possible.

The constitution already permits putting a stranglehold on semi-automatic weapons - doesn't require an amendment (so sayeth the USSC). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

And "the right of the people" belongs to every person as an individual.

 

I don't think so; I think it means the COLLECTIVE people, not individuals. But the USSC doesn't agree with me, so que sera'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Yes, Jefferson's home legislature.

You never quoted Jefferson.   Sorry.    

You can't find ANY founding father quote that supports your ignorant views. 

 

This is why you're my bitch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...