Radical Extremists
When I explain you in my words, my topics get deleted or locked. So, here is an honest invitation for you to explain yourself in your own word. If you care to do so. Maybe your supporters, since it will be your own words, will not lock or delete my post.
In view of your belief in the US Constitution,:
#l How do you feel about LEO's compared to Peace Officers? Especially Peace Officers who have taken the oath of loyalty to the "promise keepers?"
#2 How do you view FFL holders?
#3 How do you view people who willingly do business with FFL holders?"
#4 How do you view the hundred of thousands of good citizens who grudgingly apply for CCW licenses so as to be able to carry concealed without being arrested?
#5 How would you react if you 5th grader came home from school with a loaded handgun he had purchased out of a vending machine?
#6 How would you feel if the violent murdered who had served his time got out of prison, stopped by Wal-mart on the way home, legally purchased a firearm, and then went to the home of his orginial victim and murdered the rest of the family?
#7 How would you feel when you learned that someone had legally sold a gun to the towns obvious nutcase and he was now legally walking around with it and acting crazy?
#8 How would you feel if you learned that Jose, an illegal alien who had a violent criminal record in Mexico, has legally bought a firearm at Walmart and was legally walking around with it?
#9 How would you feel if you learned that someone had placed a vending machine on the corner a block from you that legally sold loaded firearms to anybody who had the money to put into the machine?
All of the above would be legal if there were absolutely no gun laws in America as advocated by the radical, extremists here.
If you like the world I have described above, please tell me. But if you don't like that world, please also tell me.
In view of your belief in the US Constitution,:
#l How do you feel about LEO's compared to Peace Officers? Especially Peace Officers who have taken the oath of loyalty to the "promise keepers?"
#2 How do you view FFL holders?
#3 How do you view people who willingly do business with FFL holders?"
#4 How do you view the hundred of thousands of good citizens who grudgingly apply for CCW licenses so as to be able to carry concealed without being arrested?
#5 How would you react if you 5th grader came home from school with a loaded handgun he had purchased out of a vending machine?
#6 How would you feel if the violent murdered who had served his time got out of prison, stopped by Wal-mart on the way home, legally purchased a firearm, and then went to the home of his orginial victim and murdered the rest of the family?
#7 How would you feel when you learned that someone had legally sold a gun to the towns obvious nutcase and he was now legally walking around with it and acting crazy?
#8 How would you feel if you learned that Jose, an illegal alien who had a violent criminal record in Mexico, has legally bought a firearm at Walmart and was legally walking around with it?
#9 How would you feel if you learned that someone had placed a vending machine on the corner a block from you that legally sold loaded firearms to anybody who had the money to put into the machine?
All of the above would be legal if there were absolutely no gun laws in America as advocated by the radical, extremists here.
If you like the world I have described above, please tell me. But if you don't like that world, please also tell me.
0
-
quote:categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
But what gives you the right to demand punishment,,if they have broken no laws,,you keep going back and contradicting yourself,,We are going to punish a felon or nut case or whomever for buying a gun but there is no laws to keep him from buying it,,,You cant have it both ways,,Either there are no laws and every nut in the world can buy whatever they want and do as they please with no recourse,or you have laws to stop them from it and if they break that law they can be punished,,,your entire arguement is false and you keep talking in circles. The only way you can defend it is to attack the other person,,Most people who stoop down to that level knows their argument will not hold water and its the only recourse they have0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
But what gives you the right to demand punishment,,if they have broken no laws,,you keep going back and contradicting yourself,,We are going to punish a felon or nut case or whomever for buying a gun but there is no laws to keep him from buying it,,,You cant have it both ways,,Either there are no laws and every nut in the world can buy whatever they want and do as they please with no recourse,or you have laws to stop them from it and if they break that law they can be punished,,,your entire arguement is false and you keep talking in circles. The only way you can defend it is to attack the other person,,Most people who stoop down to that level knows their argument will not hold water and its the only recourse they have
You are clearly beyond help. Have a good evening.0 -
It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
Firearms restraints have never stopped a crime, in fact the opposite is is more the case.....
I want the vending machine concession at the airport....
Don0 -
quote:It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
I agree completly,,Those laws wee never in debate,,the question is or was, what about when those people get out of prison,,most of them will not be in for life,,they are not going to give you life for theft or assault,,they cant afford to put everyone convicted of a crime for life,,you cant take them out back and shoot them that is against another amendment, So should there be a law keeping these people from buying/opwning a firearm ???0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
I agree completly,,Those laws wee never in debate,,the question is or was, what about when those people get out of prison,,most of them will not be in for life,,they are not going to give you life for theft or assault,,they cant afford to put everyone convicted of a crime for life,,you cant take them out back and shoot them that is against another amendment, So should there be a law keeping these people from buying/opwning a firearm ???
Amazing, on several levels.
Now he agrees and switches tactics, still completely missing the point about 'prior restraint' vs. specific punishment for the commission of a specific 'bad-act'.
Just another dense collectivist-gerbil, gnawing away at the foundations of the Republic, happily ignorant of the principles of our founding and of liberty.
It is what it is...0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Causing harm, or creating an environment that can reasonably expected to cause harm is not protected. Yelling fire in a theater is comparable to firing a firearm in a theater, just as possessing an unregistered tongue is comparable to possessing an unregistered firearm. Can we dispense with this false analogy once and for all time, please?
There is no preemptive restriction on speech. There is only prosecution for wrongful action, thus the comparison is not applicable
I can C&P just as many against your argument but for this debate,,I will except it,,That still does not excuse Slander of another or at least a dozen other instances where you do not have free speech if it affects another person,,your free speech does not cancel out there rights..
I don't think you are seeing what the argument actually is, sharpshooter. Just as free speech does not bestow the right to slander, the 2nd does not bestow the right to injure. Restrictions on free speech in the examples you give only apply when a wrong has been committed. Restrictions on bearing arms apply before a wrong has been committed.
There are a few cases where the right to peaceably assemble have been denied, and only here can you draw a partial comparison. The problem is, however, that these denials consider disruptions to others via traffic disruption, private property access, etc. There is no such disruption to the rights of others caused by an individual bearing a firearm.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
I agree completly,,Those laws wee never in debate,,the question is or was, what about when those people get out of prison,,most of them will not be in for life,,they are not going to give you life for theft or assault,,they cant afford to put everyone convicted of a crime for life,,you cant take them out back and shoot them that is against another amendment, So should there be a law keeping these people from buying/opwning a firearm ???
To directly answer your question: No, there should be no such restrictive laws.
1. The obvious contradiction of the basic human right codified in Amendment II should be sufficient for all to understand why these laws cannot exist. Each and every one of contributes the dilution of the protections of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not uniquely disparaged, but it is probably the most egregiously disparaged.
2. From a practical standpoint, the restrictions on post-incarceration felons places these individuals at a higher level of personal risk than the average population. Denying these people the basic human right of self defense and of defense of their families ensures that they remain on the outside of society looking in. The neighborhoods in which these people are typically forced to live for economic and other societal issues are typically neighborhoods where self protection is more important than elsewhere. I wouldn't live there absent a self-defense weapon, and I would not ask anyone else to live there either.
3. The societal insistence that ex-felons carry that label permanently creates a self-perpetuating criminal class. The labelling and denial of basic rights ensures that full integration into society will never occur. Many may thump their chests and insist that they are only getting what they deserve, but the actual result is that permanent labelling creates a permanent problem. Those that pose an obvious danger need to be sequestered and kept out of society. Those that are deemed acceptable to re-enter society should do so and should fully re-enter. Our fear of potential actions is no excuse for relegating a block of our fellow citizens to a life in the shadows. It is inherently wrong on a human level, and it is a direct violation of basic human rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:First, Amendment II is textually a prohibition on government from infringing on a citizens RKBA
you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms,,I know you hate courts but this is one of those little pesky things that has already been determend in one. An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder,,it was considered ARMS all the way back to the Knights on horses carrying long sticks,,Nothing in the 2nd gives you the right to own any FIREARM you chose
quote:Second, people can refuse to sell to anyone if they so chose, whether a vending machine owner/operator, a gun show seller or any other person wishing to make a sale.
You again are 100% right,,there will be many gun dealers with morals and control who they sell to,,but without laws there will be many many more who just dont care and will sell to anyone,,you have them no when its illegal,,they would come out of the wood works like cockroaches if it was made legal
quote:Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBES IS A LAW you can not punish or sanction someone for breaking a law that does not exist,,you just defeated your own arguement
Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment!!!
Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!![;)]0 -
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Your a politician....no wonder you don't get it....
Why should I, as a law abiding citizen, have to prove my innocence to anybody?
Don0 -
quote:unless you are in this class of peopleIndividualism singles out no 'groups', 'categories', 'special classes', or segments of the citizenry for differential treatment.
What is that other, opposing ethic which operates in that manner and which does that, you know, the one that is directly responsible for the erosion of our Constitution, liberties and republic.........
Oh yeah, it is 'Collectivism'.
Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Actually I do not think the RIGHT to own anything you want is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have had very lengthy discussions here reference my beliefs and have been called everything but a nice person for disagreeing with the strict constructionists here[}:)].
Secondly, I doubt that you know more about the law than I. I have been in the 'system' for 35+ years in three states. I believe 95+% of the federal, state, and local laws on the books restricting the RTKABA's are unconstitutional.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:categorically stated that 'gun-laws' are unconstitutional and I reject them. I coupled that with a detailed description of a 'bad-act', which is what punishment must be geared to.
But what gives you the right to demand punishment,,if they have broken no laws,,you keep going back and contradicting yourself,,We are going to punish a felon or nut case or whomever for buying a gun but there is no laws to keep him from buying it,,,You cant have it both ways,,Either there are no laws and every nut in the world can buy whatever they want and do as they please with no recourse,or you have laws to stop them from it and if they break that law they can be punished,,,your entire arguement is false and you keep talking in circles. The only way you can defend it is to attack the other person,,Most people who stoop down to that level knows their argument will not hold water and its the only recourse they have
you fail to grasp that the act is punishable regardless of the medium used to commit it. Are you advocating for control, regulation, and registration of nail guns? Rope? Knives? If not, why are you singling out firearms? Wait, I know, it's because you're ascared of them!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Actually I do not think the RIGHT to own anything you want is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have had very lengthy discussions here reference my beliefs and have been called everything but a nice person for disagreeing with the strict constructionists here[}:)].
Secondly, I doubt that you know more about the law than I. I have been in the 'system' for 35+ years in three states. I believe 95+% of the federal, state, and local laws on the books restricting the RTKABA's are unconstitutional.[:)]
Ok, please tell me which arms are restricted by amendment 2.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
wow. the depth and breadth of subjects which you have limited to no knowledge is amazing. High school kids building nuclear weapons. That's quite comical.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Actually I do not think the RIGHT to own anything you want is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have had very lengthy discussions here reference my beliefs and have been called everything but a nice person for disagreeing with the strict constructionists here[}:)].
Secondly, I doubt that you know more about the law than I. I have been in the 'system' for 35+ years in three states. I believe 95+% of the federal, state, and local laws on the books restricting the RTKABA's are unconstitutional.[:)]
Ok, please tell me which arms are restricted by amendment 2.
The first ten amendment's are 'individual' rights. BUT they are not absolute, they must be 'managed'!
As I have stated MANY times before here (use the search app) I believe the founders would be in aw if they were alive today and would not agree with the 'citizens' having 'nukes' (as you put it).
I believe the 'individual' right should be to own and use 'individual' weapons with out any restriction. If the individual soldier is issued the weapon the citizen should have access to it as well. Crew served weapons should be restricted to 'groups' as shooting clubs and other organization who will except responsibility to maintain and secure them properly.
Large weapons 'systems', MBT's, artillery, fighter aircraft and etc. should be restricted to government only.
And this really upsets the strict constructionist here. But you ask.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:First, Amendment II is textually a prohibition on government from infringing on a citizens RKBA
you are 100% correct in the law but 100% wrong in your interpertation,,it says the right to keep and bear arms,,it does not say the right to keep and bear firearms,,I know you hate courts but this is one of those little pesky things that has already been determend in one. An arm could be a sword, A knife ,or evn black powder,,it was considered ARMS all the way back to the Knights on horses carrying long sticks,,Nothing in the 2nd gives you the right to own any FIREARM you chose
quote:Second, people can refuse to sell to anyone if they so chose, whether a vending machine owner/operator, a gun show seller or any other person wishing to make a sale.
You again are 100% right,,there will be many gun dealers with morals and control who they sell to,,but without laws there will be many many more who just dont care and will sell to anyone,,you have them no when its illegal,,they would come out of the wood works like cockroaches if it was made legal
quote:Third, if a person commits a bad-act, with a firearm or without, mental case, felon, depressed, angry, coldly-deliberate or otherwise, a specific punishment or sanction for the commission of that individual bad-act must be levied against the individual committing it.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBES IS A LAW you can not punish or sanction someone for breaking a law that does not exist,,you just defeated your own arguement
Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment!!!
Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!![;)]
wow. the depth and breadth of subjects which you have limited to no knowledge is amazing. High school kids building nuclear weapons. That's quite comical.
You lost me here! I have idea what you are talking about![?]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You lost me here! I have idea what you are talking about![?]
sorry Jim, I responded to the wrong post.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Actually I do not think the RIGHT to own anything you want is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have had very lengthy discussions here reference my beliefs and have been called everything but a nice person for disagreeing with the strict constructionists here[}:)].
Secondly, I doubt that you know more about the law than I. I have been in the 'system' for 35+ years in three states. I believe 95+% of the federal, state, and local laws on the books restricting the RTKABA's are unconstitutional.[:)]
Ok, please tell me which arms are restricted by amendment 2.
The first ten amendment's are 'individual' rights. BUT they are not absolute, they must be 'managed'!
As I have stated MANY times before here (use the search app) I believe the founders would be in aw if they were alive today and would not agree with the 'citizens' having 'nukes' (as you put it).
I believe the 'individual' right should be to own and use 'individual' weapons with out any restriction. If the individual soldier is issued the weapon the citizen should have access to it as well. Crew served weapons should be restricted to 'groups' as shooting clubs and other organization who will except responsibility to maintain and secure them properly.
Large weapons 'systems', MBT's, artillery, fighter aircraft and etc. should be restricted to government only.
And this really upsets the strict constructionist here. But you ask.
I didn't put it as "nukes" but ok. Anyway, I see your point and would respectfully ask for you to point to where any of that can be supported by what was written in amendment 2.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
It's really not that hard, if you rape, murder, burgle, bugger or assault another person, you get punished for that "bad act".
Those laws are not in question, laws restricting firearms ownership are.
Firearms restraints have never stopped a crime, in fact the opposite is is more the case.....
I want the vending machine concession at the airport....
Don
I agree what firearms laws have stopped crimes in our big cities with the most anti gun laws? Laws have never stopped a person determined to kill and maim with a firearm. They abound in Chicago ,In NY, In Boston etc.............0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Actually I do not think the RIGHT to own anything you want is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have had very lengthy discussions here reference my beliefs and have been called everything but a nice person for disagreeing with the strict constructionists here[}:)].
Secondly, I doubt that you know more about the law than I. I have been in the 'system' for 35+ years in three states. I believe 95+% of the federal, state, and local laws on the books restricting the RTKABA's are unconstitutional.[:)]
Ok, please tell me which arms are restricted by amendment 2.
The first ten amendment's are 'individual' rights. BUT they are not absolute, they must be 'managed'!
As I have stated MANY times before here (use the search app) I believe the founders would be in aw if they were alive today and would not agree with the 'citizens' having 'nukes' (as you put it).
I believe the 'individual' right should be to own and use 'individual' weapons with out any restriction. If the individual soldier is issued the weapon the citizen should have access to it as well. Crew served weapons should be restricted to 'groups' as shooting clubs and other organization who will except responsibility to maintain and secure them properly.
Large weapons 'systems', MBT's, artillery, fighter aircraft and etc. should be restricted to government only.
And this really upsets the strict constructionist here. But you ask.
I didn't put it as "nukes" but ok. Anyway, I see your point and would respectfully ask for you to point to where any of that can be supported by what was written in amendment 2.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we are discussing the interpretation of the amendment here. This is MY interpretation of the amendment. I am a realist, there for I take into consideration more than the ideology, because 'ideal/perfect' exist only in the mind of the beholder there is no such thing in the 'real' world!!!![:)]
Secondly, the amendment refers to 'militia' which are citizens in small units and thus it would make sense to arm them as you would a small military unit, ie. squad or fire team..0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
quote:Actually you are wrong in your interpretation. ARMS are all inclusive thus ALL ARMS are protected. Are fireARMS not ARMS??? Thus they are included and therefore they are specifically protected my the Second Amendment
so you believe everyone in America should have their own Nuke down in the basement, they are only arms also and it has been proven high school kids can build one,,its happened already. So to keep you from having to be inconveniced the entire country has to be put at risk ? There is nothing in Federal law to keep you from owning almost any firearm you wish,,even class 3,,
quote:Secondly, you obviously know very little about the 'law'. The point Jeff was making is that is already unlawful to assault or murder people so why is there a need to infringe on our rights to try and restrict our access to weapons?? Simple put, there are MANY more good people than bad, so if we all have access to weapons and we exercise this right the bad guys do not have a chance!!!!
I bet I know more about LAW than most on here,,I mean whats on the books ,,not what you wish it to be,,but with that said,,how would a law that refuses the legal purchase of a firearm to a Felon or Mental patient restrict your access to a firearm unless you are in this class of people,
Actually I do not think the RIGHT to own anything you want is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I have had very lengthy discussions here reference my beliefs and have been called everything but a nice person for disagreeing with the strict constructionists here[}:)].
Secondly, I doubt that you know more about the law than I. I have been in the 'system' for 35+ years in three states. I believe 95+% of the federal, state, and local laws on the books restricting the RTKABA's are unconstitutional.[:)]
Ok, please tell me which arms are restricted by amendment 2.
The first ten amendment's are 'individual' rights. BUT they are not absolute, they must be 'managed'!
As I have stated MANY times before here (use the search app) I believe the founders would be in aw if they were alive today and would not agree with the 'citizens' having 'nukes' (as you put it).
I believe the 'individual' right should be to own and use 'individual' weapons with out any restriction. If the individual soldier is issued the weapon the citizen should have access to it as well. Crew served weapons should be restricted to 'groups' as shooting clubs and other organization who will except responsibility to maintain and secure them properly.
Large weapons 'systems', MBT's, artillery, fighter aircraft and etc. should be restricted to government only.
And this really upsets the strict constructionist here. But you ask.
I didn't put it as "nukes" but ok. Anyway, I see your point and would respectfully ask for you to point to where any of that can be supported by what was written in amendment 2.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we are discussing the interpretation of the amendment here. This is MY interpretation of the amendment. I am a realist, there for I take into consideration more than the ideology, because 'ideal/perfect' exist only in the mind of the beholder there is no such thing in the 'real' world!!!![:)]
Secondly, the amendment refers to 'militia' which are citizens in small units and thus it would make sense to arm them as you would a small military unit, ie. squad or fire team..
I'm fully aware that it's your interpretation. My point is, that it is not based on the actual text, nor is it based at all upon the framers' intentions for the amendment. Consider this:
0 -
It is nice to see that George Washington agrees with me!!!![8D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
It is nice to see that George Washington agrees with me!!!![8D]
Agrees with you? There appears to be a rather wide chasm between your views and his.0 -
When George wrote this he meant the civilian (individual) should be armed the same as the soldier (individual). If I am not mistaken that is what I said!!![^]
Back then it was all front suffers and edged weapons! Today it is the M-4, SAW, snipers rifle, and a lot of ammo!!![;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
55 comments