Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 191
  1. #121  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,401
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    This is also why no enemy would be successful in invading our country. Movies like the 2 Red Dawn's were a tad unrealistic as they portrayed the American citizenry as submissive with the exception of a group of high school students. If an enemy like North Korea had the nads to invade, the only place they could secure would be California and even that's iffy because I'd be surprised if those heavily armed street gangs were so submissive to an invading force. This is the reason why the left and the leftist world hates us because unlike them, if we're invaded, we'll fight back as well as our military. China has a large army? Bring it on because along with the military, we have about 30 million armed citizens to chip in.



    Isn't Orange County pretty conservative? They named their airport after John Wayne!

    The Orange County conservatives, the northern California pot farmers and the gangs of LA would probably form quite an armed welcoming committe to any invaders from the east. Not to mention all the Navy installations in San Diego and military bases elsewhere in CA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #122  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    That isn't what I said. In this case, the fact that this person was a leftist was excluded from the mainstream media coverage, what little there was of it. OTOH, the reports of Jared Loughner as a right-winger who was inspired by Sarah Palin were a major part of the blanket coverage. Campaign ads that he hadn't seen were cited as a cause of his rampage. Dorner, who is currently on the run, is a gun control advocate who admiringly cites Piers Morgan and the MSNBC drones, but that hasn't been widely reported. The point, which you are obscuring, is that when it's a leftist, the media ignores the uncomfortable facts and doesn't provide the same level of coverage as it does when they think that they have someone on the right in their cross-hairs.
    This is nothing more than media tendering to whom they perceive to be their listeners. We live in a free-market society and it reflects equally in our media coverage. If you don't think this isn't so then simply tune into Fox or conservative radio or thumb through The Weekly Standard or News Max or any right-wing rag. These and more have made their founders wealthy pandering solely to right-wing ideology. *Good for them. From the day that the first page rolled off the first printing press bias entered into the media. The founders were notorious in their manipulation of the media to suit their own political perspectives and for media pandering to them. Yet through it all we have somehow muddled through. This is why I say so what. You are sniveling and whining about something that, at the end of the day, really doesn't matter.

    On the contrary, it is you who doesn't get it. First, understand that the primary authority behind the Constitution is not the federal government, but the people. The powers given to the federal government are those powers delegated by the people of the United States, and ratified by the states. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not granted to the people by a benevolent state, but are rights which predate the state, and which the state has no authority to withdraw. The delegation of national defense to the federal government does not mean that we abrogate the right of self defense, or possession of the means of self defense.
    Where is that being suggested? The question is why one can only defend oneself with an assult weapon with a 100 round clip?


    If you wish to argue that I don't understand the laws which I cited, then by all means, provide your interpretation. Ideally, that interpretation will also quote the statutes and supporting documents, such as the Federalist Papers or the decisions of the various courts in interpreting the Second Amendment. However, if you are simply attempting to provide cover for your inability to refute the argument, then the absence of an effective response will be all the proof necessary. Your move, Petey.
    First, you didn’t give an argument. Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the right to regulate militia but you ignored the reason why congress sought to rely on the militia instead of a permanent army. An argument would have explored the reasons behind the wording of the Constitution and its articles.

    The original intention of the Founding Fathers was that America would not risk maintaining a traditional standing army. The new American nation was to be founded on the high principles of freedom, liberty, and respect for life and property. As such the only concern was to defend the nation, not establish the means to conquer America's neighbors. When a need to defend the new nation arose, they would do as they'd done to fight the British - rely on a well armed citizenry motivated by enlightened self-interest to defend their own lives and property.

    This isn't a question of weather the militia should be armed or how congress would regulate armament--of course they should be armed, they were intended to be the army!!! As for citations look at the Congressional Record for the period.

    AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY STATES...June8, 1789

    Massachusetts Convention — Did not propose a keeping and bearing amendment, nor a militia nor a standing army amendment.

    South Carolina — Proposed no keeping and bearing, or militia or standing army amendment.

    New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress,*

    Virginia — SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. EIGHTEENTH, That no Soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct. NINETEENTH, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead... (Amendments proposed to the body of the Constitution).... NINTH, that no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. TENTH, That no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war.
    ELEVENTH, That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial Law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.

    New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in r. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct...that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.

    HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, July 28, 1789.

    "A well regulated militia1, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."2

    HOUSE RESOLUTION AND ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; August 24, 1789.

    ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.


    ARTICLE THE SIXTH. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

    ADDITIONAL ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; September 8, 1789

    That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war. That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time or war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.

    The Founding Fathers viewed a standing army during times of peace as dangerous to freedom. Jefferson while he was president stripped it down to only 3000 men. Congress had no intention of infringing on the right to bear arms which is why your conclusion that “congress cannot, as a pretense of regulating the militia, infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” is pure BULLSHIT.

    The point that is being ignored here is that we don’t rely on a States Militia for protection but the largest and strongest free standing army every conceived by man. So, other than self-defense, what is the reasoning today behind the Second? Certainly not solely to entertain a segment of society that seeks an unlimited and unrestricted armament so as to repel some mystical tyrannical invasion of government....as so many conservatives seem to think.

    It isn’t a question now of whether congress can regulate arms, they already do, this is why we don’t see nukes or even an RPG in the hand of citizens. So why then are restrictions to certain types of weapons perceived as such an invasion of our rights?
    Last edited by PeterS; 02-11-2013 at 03:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #123  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    DUmbass...what do you think we fire in the military?
    So you think the military only has assult weapons. Jesus you are a fricking moron...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #124  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    This is nothing but typical leftist dogma drivel. A nuclear bomb is a device used to wage war. An AR-15 can be used for home defense. As well it can be used to fight back against a tyrannical government, which is what the 2nd amendment was put in for. Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
    How exectly would you defeat a tyrannicay goverment with an AR15? How did David Koresh fair?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #125  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    I'd like to see him try. But he doesn't have the balls to do this on American soil but since you suck his dick in your dreams you must be OK with this.
    Then you don't need assult weapons to fight him do you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #126  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The Afghans and Iraqis have done quite well against our military, using assault weapons, improvised explosives and hit and run tactics. Liberals, who don't study military history, don't understand that resistance to tyranny doesn't have to involve massive, set piece battles. In fact, almost every successful insurgency in history has won by avoiding decisive engagement until they had weakened the regular forces to the point where they could win. The best example of this was Wendell Fertig's insurgency in the Philippines against the Japanese during WWII. Fertig deliberately avoided engagements with Japanese troops in division, brigade or battalion strength, but as his guerillas continued to withdraw, the Japanese were forced to spread their forces into smaller and smaller units, which made them vulnerable to attack at the squad and platoon level. Eventually, the Japanese retreated to base clusters and a stalemate ensued (although Fertig's people continued to grow stronger while the Japanese were unable to increase their footprint) until MacArthur's return with overwhelming American conventional forces. The small arms that the Philippinos had prior to the war and those kept by Americans who didn't surrender proved decisive in protecting the first elements of Fertig's force. The Second Amendment isn't there to guarantee our rights, although it does, it is there to remind those who would try to impose their will upon us that there are tens of millions of potential insurgents who will resist tyranny.
    This is why the Japs, Iraquis, and Afganis all won right! Yeah, we leftists know nothing of history...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #127  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    Tactical assault kittens.








    Those old dudes spent a whole lot of time and trouble picking their words very carefully. A big part of the reason for that is that words mean things. "Arms" in the parlance of the times meant guns. What you're talking about are munitions. The Founders were not out to protect someone's right to have artillery or munitions. If they had been, they would have said so.


    Ergo, your nuclear bomb deflection is moot and irrelevant.
    It is question of whether they have a right to regulate moron...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #128  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,841
    peter is French, he has to be.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #129  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,615
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    It is question of whether they have a right to regulate moron...
    Then the answer to that question is "no" with regards to firearms. The answer to that question is "yes" when it comes to munitions and artillery, because those are not specifically protected under the Constitution. Guns are.

    It's not complicated. "Shall not be infringed" is not a difficult concept to grasp, nor is "the people," which are those who would be affected by an infringement, nor are "arms," so long as you have an understanding of what "arms" means, and what it meant at the time. It's an independent clause, totally separate from "A well-regulated militia."

    I learned this in second grade English. I'm not sure why you didn't.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #130  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    Then the answer to that question is "no" with regards to firearms. The answer to that question is "yes" when it comes to munitions and artillery, because those are not specifically protected under the Constitution. Guns are.
    Read what I posted to O. Congress intended the militia to be the principle means of protecting the conuntry and the public (men) were to be the militia. It only follows that they should have any and all access to current technology. So no, munitions and artilary would not be excluded. Yet they are, why?

    It's not complicated. "Shall not be infringed" is not a difficult concept to grasp, nor is "the people," which are those who would be affected by an infringement, nor are "arms," so long as you have an understanding of what "arms" means, and what it meant at the time. It's an independent clause, totally separate from "A well-regulated militia."

    I learned this in second grade English. I'm not sure why you didn't.
    An independent cluause is seperated by a semi-colon, look at the First Amendment. The Second is sepereted by a comma making them two dependent clauses, each on the other.

    on edit, sorry I realize I should have provided it and I meant to say semi-colon in the above

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
    note how dependent clauses (those that belong together) are seperated by comas and the independent clauses (those that stand alone) are seperated are seperated by semicolons.
    Last edited by PeterS; 02-11-2013 at 04:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •