SkyDekker 1,465 #251 November 19, 2009 QuoteSo, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I somple terms I said it wasn't a right granted by the constitution. You came along and said the constitution doens't grant rights. Which by definition means I am right. (and as per the first line in my response, a complete semantics argument) The right to bear arms to protect yourself from the government, shall not be infringed. That is what the second amendend says. The first amendmend pretty much says that free speech shall not be tampered with, but doesn't add a qualifier like the second amendmend. It just leafs it at free speech in general. Now, in the second amendmend they added a qualifier. I am just wondering why they would have felt the need to do that. I doubt that all these wise and revered men would have added wording just for the hell of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #252 November 19, 2009 QuoteThe right to bear arms to protect yourself from the government, shall not be infringed. That is what the second amendend says. WRONG. Go back and read the link I provided. QuoteThe first amendmend pretty much says that free speech shall not be tampered with, but doesn't add a qualifier like the second amendmend. It just leafs it at free speech in general. Now, in the second amendmend they added a qualifier. I am just wondering why they would have felt the need to do that. I doubt that all these wise and revered men would have added wording just for the hell of it. It's not a qualifier. Again, go read the link.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #253 November 19, 2009 Was the speech I quoted/linked by Alexander Hamilton not enough?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #254 November 19, 2009 >Re-read the last line of my post. You said the government infringes upon that right, but the supreme court has ruled that some restrictions are not infringements of that right. You may disagree with the supreme court; that's fine. > Do some research and you'll find that many of the original >gun-control laws were racist in origin. Of course. As were many zoning, education and traffic laws. For years, governmental agencies sought to use laws to subtly discriminate against blacks after more overt means were made illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #255 November 19, 2009 QuoteWRONG. Go back and read the link I provided You mean the link to a "slightly" biased site? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #256 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteWRONG. Go back and read the link I provided You mean the link to a "slightly" biased site? Whatever, dude - believe what the fuck you want. You're wrong, but hey - at least you're not getting your info from any BIASED sites, right? If you think the Brady folks would link to anything like that, then you're even more out of touch on the subject than you're already proven.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #257 November 19, 2009 Last warning for everyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #258 November 19, 2009 QuoteYou mean the link to a "slightly" biased site? Like the SC? QuoteJUSTICE SCALIA: Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Like a direct quote from a Founding Father? QuoteI go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? Alexander Hamilton May 28th, 1788 And the majority opinion in Heller v DC is a "biased" source? Quote1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Sorry, direct quotes are not "biased" no matter what site you pull them off of."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #259 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou've got one of those "So you must support eating live kittens in front of children, don't you?" styles. Kind of icky, to be honest. He made a statement that he supported the SC, and I didn't. I think it is a fair question. You are free to ignore it I can't; when I see it often enough, it's like an allergy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #260 November 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSince we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. So, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I don't think so. As I said above (and provided in a link, if you bothered to read it), the BOR is a RESTRICTION against government. The fact that a militia is mentioned does not matter. The fact that self-defense is NOT mentioned does not matter. The government is NOT supposed to infringe upon the right to bear arms. It *does*, but it's not supposed to. According to the SC, many reasonable and long standing restrictions do not infringe on that right. Re-read the last line of my post. Do some research and you'll find that many of the original gun-control laws were racist in origin. That has no relevance whatsoever to the current (2008) interpretation by the SC that certain restrictions do NOT infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #261 November 20, 2009 QuoteI can't; when I see it often enough, it's like an allergy. And I can't stand the hypocrisy. Sounds like we both have a weakness"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #262 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSince we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. So, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I don't think so. As I said above (and provided in a link, if you bothered to read it), the BOR is a RESTRICTION against government. The fact that a militia is mentioned does not matter. The fact that self-defense is NOT mentioned does not matter. The government is NOT supposed to infringe upon the right to bear arms. It *does*, but it's not supposed to. According to the SC, many reasonable and long standing restrictions do not infringe on that right. Re-read the last line of my post. Do some research and you'll find that many of the original gun-control laws were racist in origin. That has no relevance whatsoever to the current (2008) interpretation by the SC that certain restrictions do NOT infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Then you have no problem with the Patriot Act, since the courts upheld it. Good.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #263 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSince we are into semantics now....you just proved I am right. So, proving you and he were both wrong somehow proves your point? I don't think so. As I said above (and provided in a link, if you bothered to read it), the BOR is a RESTRICTION against government. The fact that a militia is mentioned does not matter. The fact that self-defense is NOT mentioned does not matter. The government is NOT supposed to infringe upon the right to bear arms. It *does*, but it's not supposed to. According to the SC, many reasonable and long standing restrictions do not infringe on that right. Re-read the last line of my post. Do some research and you'll find that many of the original gun-control laws were racist in origin. That has no relevance whatsoever to the current (2008) interpretation by the SC that certain restrictions do NOT infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Then you have no problem with the Patriot Act, since the courts upheld it. Good. I DO have a problem with it but I accept it as the established law of the land. I don't claim my interpretation is above that of the courts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #264 November 20, 2009 QuoteI DO have a problem with it but I accept it as the established law of the land. I don't claim my interpretation is above that of the courts. Having some problems with the "nuances of the English language" today? Where did I say the SC decisions weren't the law of the land, or that my interpretation was above that of the courts?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #265 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuote Then you have no problem with the Patriot Act, since the courts upheld it. Good. I DO have a problem with it but I accept it as the established law of the land. I don't claim my interpretation is above that of the courts. Seems wishy washy. Essentially the SC is fine when you agree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #266 November 20, 2009 QuoteYou've already made it clear that you can't tell the difference between terrorism and a lone mentally ill person with a delusion. Fortunately, Obama can tell the difference, and has the willingness to refuse to play the politics of fear. Andy, I'm tired of you telling us that the sky isn't really blue and that it's neon green. It was political & religious and Obama needs to own up that terrorism happened on his watch. See below http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575892,00.html Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #267 November 20, 2009 QuoteSeems wishy washy. Essentially the SC is fine when you agree with them. Glad I am not the only one that see's that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #268 November 20, 2009 QuoteIt was political & religious Yes. In the delusional mind of a mentally ill person acting alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #269 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt was political & religious Yes. In the delusional mind of a mentally ill person acting alone. You keep saying this Andy.... can you please show me how that makes it "Not a terrorist act"?Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #270 November 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt was political & religious Yes. In the delusional mind of a mentally ill person acting alone. You keep saying this Andy.... can you please show me how that makes it "Not a terrorist act"? Aside from the simplistic definition of terrorism being 'anything someone I disagree with does', it implies committing violence for a political purpose. But a loner nut killing people does not have a greater purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #271 November 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt was political & religious Yes. In the delusional mind of a mentally ill person acting alone. You keep saying this Andy.... can you please show me how that makes it "Not a terrorist act"? Aside from the simplistic definition of terrorism being 'anything someone I disagree with does', it implies committing violence for a political purpose. But a loner nut killing people does not have a greater purpose. Whether it's one person or 10 people acting. Jumping on the table and yelling "Allah Hu Akbar" makes it terrorism. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #272 November 21, 2009 Quote Whether it's one person or 10 people acting. Jumping on the table and yelling "Allah Hu Akbar" makes it terrorism. Oh, Jesus Christ. Hey! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #273 August 6, 2013 Hmmm... Would it not appear his intent was terrorism? He seems to be admitting to that to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #274 August 6, 2013 SkyChimp Quote Quote Quote Quote It was political & religious Yes. In the delusional mind of a mentally ill person acting alone. You keep saying this Andy.... can you please show me how that makes it "Not a terrorist act"? Aside from the simplistic definition of terrorism being 'anything someone I disagree with does', it implies committing violence for a political purpose. But a loner nut killing people does not have a greater purpose. Whether it's one person or 10 people acting. Jumping on the table and yelling "Allah Hu Akbar" makes it terrorism. oh wait were you serious ?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #275 August 6, 2013 normissHmmm... Would it not appear his intent was terrorism? He seems to be admitting to that to me. We are all terrorists buddy, we call ours heroes as they call there’s heroes. Being more organized or having superior technology makes no difference. When you threaten and deliver violence because others do not comply that makes you a terrorist. The U.S. us were the best at it, sometimes we just show up with our ships and point the big guns to get what we want, sometimes we drop trillions worth of bombs. It’s all the same all motivated by selfish need. Oddly what most people in the west call or know as terrorist are people who are retaliating to decade’s worth of terrorism done by us.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
