CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 7, 2015 18:02:03 GMT -5
The founding fathers were opposed to standing armies that's why it was imperative that the people not be disarmed. It wasn't to protect their guns for domestic use. www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htmJust stop already! Never said it was only to protect their guns for domestic use. I said, they already had guns for domestic use and the amendment was placed to ensure they kept them and maintained shooting skills to support a militia if needed. Today we don't need weapons for the same reasons the possession of weapons protection was put in the Constitution, so a ban on assault rifles would not violate 2nd amendment rights - those that want weapons could still purchase them albeit not the AR-15/AK-47 variety. Ditto for extra capacity magazines, etc. Be a man and admit you were wrong. Stop changing your argument. You are being silly. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 7, 2015 18:04:27 GMT -5
Here you go idiot right from your link: “[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5 You are an idiot - keep embarrassing yourself! Lmao! Read it - it's your link for God's sake! |
|
|
|
Post by psycholojets on Oct 8, 2015 16:55:00 GMT -5
which RULERS are you referring to that we the people should be able to take up arms against? CR you and the other NRA loons really need a reality check. It is not 1787 any more. Get out of the basement once in a while and you would notice...sorry, presumptuous of me...You MIGHT notice. Might not!
Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 8, 2015 17:48:27 GMT -5
which RULERS are you referring to that we the people should be able to take up arms against? CR you and the other NRA loons really need a reality check. It is not 1787 any more. Get out of the basement once in a while and you would notice...sorry, presumptuous of me...You MIGHT notice. Might not! Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards That would not be me, that would be Thomas Jefferson. I don't belong to the NRA and I do not own a gun. I do have an appreciation for the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments. I am also humble enough to know that's our founding fathers individually and surely collectively have more wisdom than you do. As much as I tease MP, I appreciate the banter, he is a worthy competitor. You on the other hand should keep quiet on things you don't understand and probably never will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 7:56:25 GMT -5
In today's TU - NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox said "If Obama and gun control advocates were serious they would address the underlying issue of America's broken mental health system." Trust me on this one, if the NO Gun Control advocates believe that and let their conservative voices be heard, the liberal elements in Congress would embrace them and collectively they would appropriate the money necessary to fix the system. Interesting quote - divert the blame to those that are the biggest advocates of improving the mental health/health care system while taking the stance to block such expenditures!
NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker disputed Democrats' citation of polls saying an overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, support background checks. Bottom line the NRA is opposed to point of sale background checks. This brings up the most obvious question - if the mental health system were improved and those with mental conditions were known, how would that data impact a future gun sale to one of those people if no background checks are performed?
|
|
|
|
Post by psycholojets on Oct 9, 2015 9:35:18 GMT -5
Really CR, you quote something and then when asked to defend it say it was not you who said it? And then you question my worthiness to engage in banter..Lol.
Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 9, 2015 14:06:38 GMT -5
Really CR, you quote something and then when asked to defend it say it was not you who said it? And then you question my worthiness to engage in banter..Lol. Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards The original discussion had to do with the intent of the founders not what I think. |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,047
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 9, 2015 17:59:44 GMT -5
Another school shooting today
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 19:23:22 GMT -5
Another school shooting today I am certain it will be another "mental illness" case (Is the U of Northern Arizona a safety school???) - wonder what the death toll would have been in a Donald Trump world when all of the folks involved in the argument would have been carrying? Ben Carson would have told the shooter to get the guy next to him! Let's all join hands, lock and load and sing Hallelujah for the 2nd Amendment and all of today's literal readers of the Constitution - no interpretation allowed!!!!!!!!! |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 9, 2015 19:31:54 GMT -5
Another school shooting today I am certain it will be another "mental illness" case (Is the U of Northern Arizona a safety school???) - wonder what the death toll would have been in a Donald Trump world when all of the folks involved in the argument would have been carrying? Ben Carson would have told the shooter to get the guy next to him! Let's all join hands, lock and load and sing Hallelujah for the 2nd Amendment and all of today's literal readers of the Constitution - no interpretation allowed!!!!!!!!! Another tragedy for sure. I'm not sure why you have mental illness in quotes MP. The prior assassin was mentally ill was he not? And he unfortunately had a moron for a mother. You guys seem to relish in the fact that we have another shooting on the heels of the last one. I don't. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the arguments in support of the Constitution. I should add that it doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Parenthetically, I'm not certain either way, but was the Arizona shooting on campus or off campus? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 4:57:02 GMT -5
I am certain it will be another "mental illness" case (Is the U of Northern Arizona a safety school???) - wonder what the death toll would have been in a Donald Trump world when all of the folks involved in the argument would have been carrying? Ben Carson would have told the shooter to get the guy next to him! Let's all join hands, lock and load and sing Hallelujah for the 2nd Amendment and all of today's literal readers of the Constitution - no interpretation allowed!!!!!!!!! Another tragedy for sure. I'm not sure why you have mental illness in quotes MP. The prior assassin was mentally ill was he not? And he unfortunately had a moron for a mother. You guys seem to relish in the fact that we have another shooting on the heels of the last one. I don't. It's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the arguments in support of the Constitution. I should add that it doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Parenthetically, I'm not certain either way, but was the Arizona shooting on campus or off campus? Your claim that we relish another shooting is beyond insulting and, as many of your assertions are, patently false! We also support the Constitution and adding some regulations such as the need for background checks, registration and prohibition of sales of military type automatic weapons does not eliminate the rights of citizens to purchase and own firearms. Your view that any regulation would violate the amendment's provision fails to address your own agreement that sales to/ownership by those with mental illness should be controlled/prevented. Interpreting the Constitution based on current conditions is not unconstitutional - it is and should be a living document. If you want an example of a governmental system not subject to current interpretation, try Sharia law! FYI, there was yet another campus shooting last night but the details have not yet come out. Texas just passed a law allowing students to carry! The wild, wild west returns as the "sheriff" who made all citizens check their weapons on entering the town has been shit canned! Texas will now become the petri dish for the "solutions" put forth by the Trump like whacko's! Chalk up another victory for the NRA, Smith & Wesson, etc....... Investment in a company manufacturing body armor might be a good plan of action at this juncture. Lastly, the UNA shooting was on campus outside one of the Greek System houses and involved a freshman - the shooter, and four upper classmen - the victims. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 10, 2015 6:14:58 GMT -5
Constantly making your straw man arguments - I guess that's the only way you can win. I'm not against regulations but they have to be efficacious, otherwise we just have more laws that dilute our freedom. You don't appreciate the correlation between bigger government and less freedom. You are a big government lib. I get it. Fundamentally we probably agree on very little.
Automatic weapons are not sold anymore and are illegal. Semiautomatic weapons describes many hunting guns.
The only thing that distinguishes the assault rifle from a non assault rifle is the stock! In fact, many who owned them in NY simply changed the stock on the guns to make them compliant.
How many young children died in Chicago this month, in a gun free zone, from gun violence? Probably with illegal guns no doubt - where is the outrage?
|
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 9,010
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Oct 10, 2015 6:42:03 GMT -5
Regardless of the intent of the Constitution regarding guns, I'm still not convinced if tougher gun laws (or laws on obtaining a gun legally) will necessarily prevent crimes involving guns.
There's already laws against hurting people (with or w/o guns) but yet people still hurt others.
There's laws against using/selling certain drugs, yet people still buy and use them.
In prohibition days people still made alcohol and/or drank it.
Cities with evening curfew laws, even if only for certain ages, still have violators.
There's thousands of laws (city, state, fed, international, etc.) yet crimes are still committed.
I just don't see how adding more gun laws (no matter how good the intent is) will result in the number of gun crimes going down. Stats can always be skewed by changing the criteria of what constitutes a crime (just ask NYC mayor/police). NYC changed it criteria to achieve results they wanted. How good it that info?
I'm just not convinced these laws will make a dent in reducing gun crimes rather it's up to individuals to not wanting to commit crime or harm fellow human beings. Until people realize that laws won't stop unreasonable people (or people who have nothing to lose) from committing them.
|
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,047
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 10, 2015 7:03:57 GMT -5
Well indiansaint I guess by your logic we should just have anarchy!! It is just common sense to regulate these sales--- law abiding citizens should not have an issue rather respect the responsibility that comes with ownership.
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 10, 2015 7:45:04 GMT -5
Well indiansaint I guess by your logic we should just have anarchy!! It is just common sense to regulate these sales--- law abiding citizens should not have an issue rather respect the responsibility that comes with ownership. This is the lefty response, your choice is to create more and more laws without any concern for effectiveness or anarchy! With the left it is all about incremental change. They are not honest about what they want. They will keep fighting for change with emotion based arguments rather than reason. They don't believe in the constitution - it's a "living document". I.e., a document that they want to and can change! Antonin Scalia would not agree. The Constitution is a timeless document. The rights in the document are not rights that the government gives us, they are rights that are inalienable - rights that can not be taken away! Human rights that you would think lefties would appreciate. The "minds" on this board that question its wisdom are the people that it was meant to protect us against. |
|
