Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 191
  1. #41  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    If restrictive gun laws resulted in a safer society then Chicago Il. would be the safest place in America. The only thing the restrictive gun laws Petie and his ilk support result in is a disarmed law abiding public and criminals preying on them and each other. Criminals don't give a fuck about the law....they're criminals after all.
    So do universal back ground checks and restrict criminals ability to get guns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,132
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    So do universal back ground checks and restrict criminals ability to get guns.
    That makes no sense, it is unreadable.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Then you have no right to comment on guns so STFU.
    Actually the first amendment gives me that right not the possession of a firearm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    That makes no sense, it is unreadable.
    What part can't you read?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,132
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    What part can't you read?
    Go back and reread it , no wonder You still haven't answered what "shall not infringe" means, you can't understand it, you only spout talking points.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,288
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    So do universal back ground checks and restrict criminals ability to get guns.
    Ummm, they're criminals you blithering idiot. They don't go through legal means to get their weaponry....that's what they do you ignorant fucktard.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,288
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Actually the first amendment gives me that right not the possession of a firearm.
    So you admit that the 1st amendment allows you to show the world just what an ignorant fucktard you really are. Without the 2nd, the 1st would be gone and you idiots on the left don't realise this simple fact.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    The media always selects what they cover and how they cover it. So what?
    The selective dissemination of information, in this case, the motivation of the perpetrator, supports a false narrative that violence only comes from the right, when in fact, it comes from the left far more often. The purpose of this narrative is to cow conservatives into silence and render dissent illegitimate. This is because the media shares the left's totalitarian mindset. That's "so what".

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    As do you. I am sure you know the clause was put in there out of the founders fear of a free standing army and therefore reasoned that we should turn to a citizen militia. So do you want to disband our free standing armies and start up a well regulated citizen militia. If so, I would agree we should be issued the appropriate arms. Untlil that time though an arm sufficient for self defense should do. After of course, you pass a back ground check...
    Actually, it was put there because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gave congress the power to regulate the militia:

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    To understand this, you must also understand what a militia is. Title 10 of the US Code defines the militia:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia areó
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    Prior to the adoption of the National Defense Act of 1911, the militia definition was even more broad, but the point is that the militia is not just the National Guard, but is basically the entire male population. There was concern that a future congress would use this power to disarm the people, which is why the language specifies that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militias. The fear of a standing army was addressed in Article I, Section 8, where congress' power to raise and support armies is limited to two year appropriations:

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    So, the Second Amendment specifies that congress cannot, as a pretense of regulating the militia, infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Got it?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Go back and reread it , no wonder You still haven't answered what "shall not infringe" means, you can't understand it, you only spout talking points.
    There are two principle clauses in the amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The two clauses define each other and are not independent to be ingored if we so choose.

    The intent of the founders was not for a permanent free-standing army but instead an army assembled from states militia. This is the reason for the wording of the second amendment. This was not an i intended to give any and all nuts individual access to any arms they choose else the debate wouldn't be about assault weapons and magazine capacity but instead nuclear weapons and mega-tonnage.

    This isn't the debate though nor in a rational society would it ever be so why then are we debating about assult weapons, magazine capacity, and universal background checks?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,132
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    There are two principle clauses in the amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The two clauses define each other and are not independent to be ingored if we so choose.

    The intent of the founders was not for a permanent free-standing army but instead an army assembled from states militia. This is the reason for the wording of the second amendment. This was not an i intended to give any and all nuts individual access to any arms they choose else the debate wouldn't be about assault weapons and magazine capacity but instead nuclear weapons and mega-tonnage.

    This isn't the debate though nor in a rational society would it ever be so why then are we debating about assult weapons, magazine capacity, and universal background checks?
    You haven't read anything anybody has replied to you with, this is why I don't waste anytime with you, it has all been explained to you but you show zero comprehension of anything, i honestly don't know whether it is because of belligerence or narcotic use but something is obviously wrong with you.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    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
  •