Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 140 of 255

Thread: Question on the 2nd amendment

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    28,431

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by David W Pratt
    If you want to go down the rabbit hole of comparing hardware available to the late 1700s colonists vs today, fairness demands that you compare arms available to the military vs arms available to the populace. Similarly, fairness again demands that you include a discussion of quill pens vs computers
    Fairness demands that the 2nd Amendment be understood within the context of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitutiion.

    Hoplophiles, the NRA, and their Red servants don’t want to hear this of course.
    "Trump's authoritarianism is a feature not a bug." -- Sky Blue





  2. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    It doesn't mean what you think it means. The rights do not exist by virtue of appearing in the Constitution, or not, or partially; no way, shape or form.
    That's all philosophy and assuming everyone is on board with operating within said rule of law. If someone is holding a gun to your head, you have no rights. If we were to fall into a massive sociable collapse, your right's would be what ever local warlord decides it is, I dare you to challenge that. With that, there is no such thing as inalienable rights, there's only Darwinian law, survival and leadership of the fittest.

    Now, assuming I'm right, and I am, The US Constitution is all fine and good as long as everyone is subject to it, but not everyone is, clearly. The wealthy are above the law and if threatened sufficiently, they can and will poof you. You can get all utopian with unicorns and rainbows, but sh17 don't work like that.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    17,686

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    The subject of what the 2nd Ammendment actually means with regards to modern weaponry and modern America came up in a story on CBC Radio 1 on the weekend. They re-played a 2013 CBC's interview by Michael Enright with Professor Saul Cornell, whom is the Paul and Diane Gunther Chair in History at Fordham University. He's the former Director of the Second Amendment Research Center, and he's the author of A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America.

    Linky: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayed...ment-1.5240959
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    Interesting article on the 10th Amendment...

    https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...ts/amendment-x

    This text is hard to read in the quote block. But if you click on the link, it's much easier to read.
    Definitely interesting, it's subjective, skewed to state's rights. So I guess the question is, which laws do you not believe the Federal government has a right to enforce? Personally, I believe that we need to have stronger federal direction, for more consistent interstate commerce, increased freedom of movement due to the expectation of consistent laws. I know the States are given the ability to set election process, gun laws and regulations (ie: the ability to well regulate the militia.). I simply believe that giving states the the ultimate ability to set these laws muddies the water. I see the use of it when the country was so large but with technology, we are so much closer together. States like Alaska and Northern Maine might be the last exceptions because of there remoteness but those are things that can be worked out. I still think that locally run justice systems, police and courts, insulates us from a tyrannical government but I think laws need to be consistent.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,383

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    That's all philosophy . . .
    The foundation of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    . . . and assuming everyone is on board with operating within said rule of law.
    Regardless of whether anyone else is on board.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    If someone is holding a gun to your head, you have no rights.
    If they fire it and kill me, I have rights which the administrator of my estate will enforce against them.

    Rights do not disappear because they are violated.

    You're not an American. People have sacrificed a lot to carve out a space where you can persist in your error. Shame.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    The foundation of law.



    Regardless of whether anyone else is on board.



    If they fire it and kill me, I have rights which the administrator of my estate will enforce against them.

    Rights do not disappear because they are violated.

    You're not an American. People have sacrificed a lot to carve out a space where you can persist in your error. Shame.
    I think you're missing the point, you're so right and so wrong. We must first establish that rights are simply a human construct that can be modified or torn down all together, if we can't agree upon that, then you're the one with the problem, and it has nothing to do with being an American, it's way more basic than that.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,383

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    An excellent argument can be made that the single class of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment is that class of arms ordinarily carried by a foot soldier ("original intent", eh?), since the the point of the exercise is to ensure that the common militia, of which every able-bodied male of fighting age is a member, is armed and equipped (because you bring your own arms to the party).
    And further, that even so, no individual right was created. The Second Amendment was never about individual rights, it was about federalism, the rights of people as constituted in a state of the union. Suppose a nation that is not a federation. Is there nevertheless a right to keep and bear arms? Suppose a state in a federation decides not to have a militia. Is there nevertheless a right to keep and bear arms?
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    11,981

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    Now that is funny.
    It's sad, not funny.
    Nosce te ipsum

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,383

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    I think you're missing the point, you're so right and so wrong. We must first establish that rights are simply a human construct that can be modified or torn down all together, if we can't agree upon that, then you're the one with the problem, and it has nothing to do with being an American, it's way more basic than that.
    That's as wrong as saying that two and two make five if I have the power to kill anyone who disagrees. Nature gives such rights to no one; anyone who claimed it did would simply be wielding a human construct having no rational basis. That kind of bull S can be torn down; not so the self-evident truth that reason and conscience are put into man by his creator, not by the government.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,812

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    So, what about 'the philosophy' of this? And what about the permanently truncated rights of these and other victims of these and thousands of other citizens now dead? And the thousands more who will have their 'rights' obliterated by this time next year?
    It's all a crock of 5hit, and those arguing for 'their rights' are complicit.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    That's as wrong as saying that two and two make five if I have the power to kill anyone who disagrees. Nature gives such rights to no one; anyone who claimed it did would simply be wielding a human construct having no rational basis. That kind of bull S can be torn down; not so the self-evident truth that reason and conscience are put into man by his creator, not by the government.
    Well, there you go, I can't refute your belief system; can I? I just had to realize this wasn't a discussion, this was you, trying, to convert me to your belief system . . . not bloody likely. God is dead or never really was, either way, irrelevant. I sincerely hope you never have to understand your naivety, I, however, have experienced people who don't give a sh17 about philosophy, they just want to win and feed the beast within. They're free, all of those who made their own rules, the law ignored them. I'm glad you've never had to experience those types, but you'd not be able to act so ridiculously righteous if you had.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    That's all philosophy and assuming everyone is on board with operating within said rule of law. If someone is holding a gun to your head, you have no rights.
    Well, you do, but you're being criminally deprived of exercising them. Aren't you the fellow that recently purchased a pistol to (hopefully) reduce the chances of that?

    With that, there is no such thing as inalienable rights, there's only Darwinian law, survival and leadership of the fittest.
    Or, more accurately, the strongest. Question for you: would you prefer our (your) general population to be deprived of the weaponry necessary to resist, or would you prefer the status of the civilian population of China during the early 20th century?

    If we were to fall into a massive sociable collapse, your rights would be what ever local warlord decides they are, I dare you to challenge that.
    Well, as long as everybody's being sociable.

    Now, assuming I'm right, and I am,
    Please describe the dystopian conditions that would have to prevail for your scenario to be operative.

    The US Constitution is all fine and good as long as everyone is subject to it, but not everyone is, clearly. The wealthy are above the law and if threatened sufficiently, they can and will poof you. You can get all utopian with unicorns and rainbows, but sh17 don't work like that.
    Your last statement is, unfortunately, true, but has little to do with gun rights. (Or do you think the wealthy should have even freer rein to oppress the rest of us?

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    265

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Montgomery View Post
    Nonsense.

    Disagree? Then display your logic.

    "Arguably" meaning: "can be shown by argument." So show us your argument that if the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is archaic then so is the entire U.S. Constitution.

    I despise such facile statements made by WBF Bilge trolls. Show your work or be silent.
    .
    If the 2nd amendment is deemed archaic, why should any of the others stand the same test of time?

    You argue that we no longer need the 2nd amendment to protect us from tyranny, then why would we need the first amendment, which also protects us from tyranny? If you suddenly have so much faith in the government, why do we need any of the amendments that are aimed directly at limiting what the government can do to you, a free citizen of the USA?

    You also use the argument that they only used muskets when the Consitution was written. Well, what kind of cumputers did they draft laws upon? Do you honestly think that men like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did not understand the advancement of technology? The Chinese had been using a primitive version of a firearm since the 10th century. Cannons have been around since the 1300's. They knew advancement would happen in the arms world. I argue that is the reason they used such vague language: arms.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,884

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    You keep harping on the 2nd only applying to militias, except the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees.
    Your SCOTUS demonstrated that the law is an ass on that point. One has to wonder what form of client patron relationship they were in when they came up with that piece of stupidity. How does the 2nd not apply to militias, its opening statement links it right back to the militia clauses in the Constitution “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" makes it absolutely clear as to what they were applying the amendment to.

    And it does not matter who or where it was written, your liberty was given to you by something that is beyond the governance of men. Another man cannot be your master without your consent. That is called slavery.
    Of course it matters where it is written down. If it is not defined in writing nobody can know let alone agree what it is, and so it cannot be protected.

    Silly example.
    Slavery was accepted as the norm for way more than 2000 years of human history. Not being enslaved only became a right when society agreed to outlaw it through legislation passed by governments.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    265

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Any person who walks around calling themselves a teacher while claiming those that don't believe the same things he does is not an educator. They are an indoctrinator.

  16. #121
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    51,910

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    If the 2nd amendment is deemed archaic, why should any of the others stand the same test of time?
    .
    You know how your car uses different fluids and you can’t mix and match them even though they can be categorized as liquids?

  17. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,884

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    There exist two founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The progressive/statist will ignore the Declaration and designate the Constitution a dated instrument in need of modernizing. When you take both documents in the consideration the Founders intended, you get:

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    And that would be possible because:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” had been observed.
    Try to retain some semblance of a grip on reality, do.

    No government will enact any law or regulation that allows an armed insurrection to overthrow said government.
    That is why
    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;
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  18. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pleasant Valley NS Canada
    Posts
    17,686

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment



    Overview:

    Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong.

    Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century. A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.


    Professor Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Gunther Chair in History at Fordham University, and the former Director of the Second Amendment Research Center.


    Sounds like a good book to read.
    Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

  19. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by kgr1 View Post
    Well, you do, but you're being criminally deprived of exercising them. Aren't you the fellow that recently purchased a pistol to (hopefully) reduce the chances of that?
    Okay, Genghis Khan would have told you different in his day. The concept of these right's has only just recently begun to be practiced in any kind of equal and consistant way, and even then, we're far from perfect. If rights were so perfectly ordained, why do we have such trouble with the concept? I'll tell you why; it's not how we evolved, we're just monkeys after all. I'm not saying we shouldn't make maximum effort to ignore our inner cockroach, I'm just saying that it's lala-land thinking to think it's our natural state or some fluffily ordained institution. Rights are an invention of our amazing minds, fragile, and difficult to maintain in any sort of consistent manner, but he77 yes, worth the effort.

    Or, more accurately, the strongest. Question for you: would you prefer our (your) general population to be deprived of the weaponry necessary to resist, or would you prefer the status of the civilian population of China during the early 20th century?
    I'm not schooled on the status of Chinese civilization during that moment in time. I can say that I support the 2nd but believe we need to regulate guns much more consistently in our society. The reality is, civilians will never be able to sustain a fight against the full force of our federal military, I, however, have come to realize the importance of being able to defend against factions, insurrections, insurgencies against our established local government, however unlikely.

    Well, as long as everybody's being sociable.
    That reality is more a foundation for an argument rather than a belief of what may be. It's meant to cut through the bullsh17, so to speak.


    Please describe the dystopian conditions that would have to prevail for your scenario to be operative.
    Somalia during the 1990s.


    Your last statement is, unfortunately, true, but has little to do with gun rights. (Or do you think the wealthy should have even freer rein to oppress the rest of us?
    In the end, the wealthy/powerful don't give a rat's a55 if I'm armed, if they want me, they have all the tools at their disposal to get me. See, that's my argument; our right's are an illusion, they're what help us sleep at night, in the end, they're adherence is at the mercy of our sires, our betters, kings and queens. We never stopped being a feudal society, we just made it more palatable to the human spirit.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  20. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    45,884

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    And in England before that, supposedly. As to the rights of Englishmen, not the rights of man, better believe it.

    But, not. Only symbolically.



    You know why England doesn't have a Bill of Rights that means anything? Because they can't.



    The structure of English government allows Parliament to enact a Bill Of Rights one day and repeal it the next. In order to rationalize the situation, they must deny that rights have any other source than the will of the sovereign. It would be an infringement of Parliamentary supremacy.

    Exactly as things stood in 1776
    .
    You were doing OK right until that last few words, then you demonstrated your ability to confuse. The Civil War was fought to establish Parliaments supremacy over the Monarch. The Glorious Revolution took place to protect that supremacy. Parliament, enacting the will of the electorate that they represent is supreme. Nothing goes for Royal Assent until parliament agrees that it should. Nothing comes the other way. The monarch's assent is just the stamp and seal that makes it law, although it is not really complete until the law is tested in court to work out exactly what the words on the paper mean.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Any person who walks around calling themselves a teacher while claiming those that don't believe the same things he does is not an educator. They are an indoctrinator.
    This is truth.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  22. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,383

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Well, there you go, I can't refute your belief system; can I? I just had to realize this wasn't a discussion, this was you, trying, to convert me to your belief system . . . not bloody likely.
    You really think you're entitled to your own belief system as to the nature and purpose of this nation? Anything you pull out of the sack with your eyes closed, until you tire of it, and want something new? There are definite principles, with a firm foundation, which you either accept or reject. One category of them is the theory of natural rights. You can choose to reject the doctrine -- thanks to sacrifices made to allow the choice -- but if you do, you cannot call yourself an American.

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    I sincerely hope you never have to understand your naivety, I, however, have experienced people who don't give a sh17 about philosophy, they just want to win and feed the beast within. They're free, all of those who made their own rules, the law ignored them. I'm glad you've never had to experience those types, but you'd not be able to act so ridiculously righteous if you had.
    A bare accusation of naivete is not an argument. As to experience, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Last edited by Osborne Russell; 08-12-2019 at 07:39 PM.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  23. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    19,383

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    If the 2nd amendment is deemed archaic, why should any of the others stand the same test of time?
    Because the various mechanisms in the balance of power between the federal government, the states, locals, and all the various delgations of the peoples' sovereignty are just that, mechanisms. They can be modified or abolished without infringing fundamental rights. The Second Amendment is, or was, such a mechanism. At the time, there was a widespread support for prohibiting standing armies, and the US didn't have one, thus necessitating the state militias. Those two things are no longer true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    You argue that we no longer need the 2nd amendment to protect us from tyranny, then why would we need the first amendment, which also protects us from tyranny? If you suddenly have so much faith in the government, why do we need any of the amendments that are aimed directly at limiting what the government can do to you, a free citizen of the USA?
    That was the design of the original Constitution. The BOR -- including the Second Amendment -- was an add-on.
    Trust me to defend the Constitution just as soon as I'm sure you're going to vote for me again.

  24. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of Stupid
    Posts
    11,732

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    You really think you're entitled to your own belief system as to the nature and purpose of this nation? Anything you pull out of the sack with your eyes closed, until you tire of it, and want something new? There are definite principles, with a firm foundation, which you either accept or reject. One category of them is the theory of natural rights. You can choose to reject the doctrine -- thanks to sacrifices made to allow the choice -- but if you do, you cannot call yourself an American.
    Again, We're talking about two different things. I'm good with, and support the nature of this nation. I simply know it's a wire fence meant to keep the livestock in check and the wolves out. It's imperfect, and always exists on the border of the wilds and never works 100% of the time and is always subject to the greater nature of the wild. You can keep lecturing me, but you presuming that I accept you as some sort of authority is, well, presumptuous, and wrong.


    A bare accusation of naivete is not an argument. As to experience, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Clearly we're each having separate conversations and talking past each other. The fact that I recognize that, and you don't, hints to who has no idea of what's going on. Let's just go with the idea that the conversation has meet it's natural end between us.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  25. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,812

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    Any person who walks around calling themselves a teacher while claiming those that don't believe the same things he does is not an educator. They are an indoctrinator.
    Ahem, so much for religious based schools……………………It's all propaganda.

  26. #131
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    781

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    It's sad, not funny.
    No, I'm pretty sure it's funny......

  27. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    265

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Ahem, so much for religious based schools……………………It's all propaganda.
    When have I ever mentioned anything about religious based schools?

  28. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,040

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Try to retain some semblance of a grip on reality, do.

    No government will enact any law or regulation that allows an armed insurrection to overthrow said government.
    That is why
    Ours did. One of the things about rights; you have the right to give them away, then you’ll have to fight to get them back.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  29. #134
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    11,981

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    No, I'm pretty sure it's funny......
    No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Mocking the deaths of innocent people in a mass shooting by winking at your gun stroking buddies with a little inside joke is sad.
    Pathetic even.
    Last edited by Old Dryfoot; 08-12-2019 at 10:45 PM.
    Nosce te ipsum

  30. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,812

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanM26 View Post
    When have I ever mentioned anything about religious based schools?
    Any person who walks around calling themselves a teacher while claiming those that don't believe the same things he does is not an educator. They are an indoctrinator.

  31. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    5,040

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    “The most recent FBI crime stats show that more people were killed in 2017 with hammers and clubs than were killed with rifles of any kind.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-rifles-kind/
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  32. #137
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    11,981

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    “The most recent FBI crime stats show that more people were killed in 2017 with hammers and clubs than were killed with rifles of any kind.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-rifles-kind/
    Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    Nosce te ipsum

  33. #138
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    55,812

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    “The most recent FBI crime stats show that more people were killed in 2017 with hammers and clubs than were killed with rifles of any kind.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-rifles-kind/
    So? Hammers have a purpose other than banging someone on the head, hand guns and assault rifles's designed purpose is to kill people. And anyway there's no equivalent, you won't kill 20 people in 20 seconds at a safe distance for yourself with a club or a hammer.
    Dont be so obtuse.

  34. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    781

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Dryfoot View Post
    No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Mocking the deaths of innocent people in a mass shooting by winking at your gun stroking buddies with a little inside joke is sad.
    Pathetic even.
    You read far more into that than is required. Much like someone else seeing a joke with photo of an airplane and saying its in bad taste due to all the dead from airline crashes. The joke had nothing to do with the gun. The joke had nothing to do with shootings. The joke had everything to do with gullible people, in the context of the guy that made the news some time back for "cutting up his gun".
    The fact that you can't see that is what's sad.
    Following your rules of humour, nothing can be seen as funny.

  35. #140
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    11,981

    Default Re: Question on the 2nd amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    You read far more into that than is required. Much like someone else seeing a joke with photo of an airplane and saying its in bad taste due to all the dead from airline crashes. The joke had nothing to do with the gun. The joke had nothing to do with shootings. The joke had everything to do with gullible people, in the context of the guy that made the news some time back for "cutting up his gun".
    The fact that you can't see that is what's sad.
    Following your rules of humour, nothing can be seen as funny.
    Except that guy that cut up his gun, Scott Pappaladro, actually did cut up a gun. That "joke" is just what I said it is, a dickhead insiders wink that trivializes the deaths of inocent people. I don't care that the punchline is that is a seperated upper and lower and not a gun that's been cut in half.

    What is the gulible part? Do you think that Pappaladro was FOS when he did that? That he just swaped in a new barrel and handguard and kept blasting away happily? Why don't you catch up with what he's been up to and get back to us.
    https://twitter.com/cityscottp
    Nosce te ipsum

Posting Permissions

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