Members banned from this thread: Primavera, anatta and katzgar


Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 231

Thread: The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable.

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    38,696
    Thanks
    40,516
    Thanked 10,467 Times in 7,966 Posts
    Groans
    10,777
    Groaned 5,866 Times in 5,266 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Yes, you can technically own one. They can't be manufactured and sold. But thanks for providing the evidence for my argument. There are limits. Period.
    No, I proved you were wrong.
    Nice try.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    18,369
    Thanks
    3,626
    Thanked 5,412 Times in 4,320 Posts
    Groans
    612
    Groaned 219 Times in 207 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Sorry Joe you demented sod.
    The 2nd Ammendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

    What is it you don't understand about "Shall not be infringed"?
    It's truly disappointing that every time I see a thread like this most people don't realize that the Second Amendment is specifically about weapons useful on the battlefield. Peruse the Internet and you understand why slavery is ubiquitous throughout human history.
    Why Trump? Because Fuck You that's why.

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    38,696
    Thanks
    40,516
    Thanked 10,467 Times in 7,966 Posts
    Groans
    10,777
    Groaned 5,866 Times in 5,266 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    They take the right from prisoners.... Is that not infringement?
    You mean prisoners who lost all their rights because of their choices?
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    38,696
    Thanks
    40,516
    Thanked 10,467 Times in 7,966 Posts
    Groans
    10,777
    Groaned 5,866 Times in 5,266 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    It's truly disappointing that every time I see a thread like this most people don't realize that the Second Amendment is specifically about weapons useful on the battlefield. Peruse the Internet and you understand why slavery is ubiquitous throughout human history.
    It always amazes me that so many are willing to give up liberty for false security.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Rune For This Post:

    Guille (04-09-2021)

  6. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    12,237
    Thanks
    804
    Thanked 7,014 Times in 4,326 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,259 Times in 1,196 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    It's truly disappointing that every time I see a thread like this most people don't realize that the Second Amendment is specifically about weapons useful on the battlefield. Peruse the Internet and you understand why slavery is ubiquitous throughout human history.
    If they are for 'use on the battlefield', why the fuck do you need to carry them around with you?

  7. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Digging up your yard.
    Posts
    8,682
    Thanks
    1,490
    Thanked 1,394 Times in 1,136 Posts
    Groans
    3,120
    Groaned 154 Times in 151 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Try to make a nuclear weapon and see how that works out for you.



    Stupid argument.



    Often we hear in discussions on limits to the 2nd amendment from those who favor greater constitutional restriction suggesting that those who support the right to own so called "assault weapons" must also by default support owning "nukes" and other devices.... I would like to address that once and for all and give you the basis why that argument is faulty given the framers intent, and philosophy of liberty and the US Constitution.


    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants -Thomas Jefferson

    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws -John Adams


    So now, it is clear the founding fathers believed we should have access to every weapon available for defense of self and nation. So the argument comes up, does that mean they thought we should have access to nukes, et al?

    Lets think about it...


    The founding fathers drew thier inspiration from John Locke... "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions."


    Again I give you Thomas Jefferson - "The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless."


    So what does this all mean? Well lets put it in modern perspective... You have a right to defend yourself with effective tools for this purpose, but you may not molest, attack, or infringe on another who is not attacking you first.... Ok... we got that.... what does that mean? It means that said tool should be able to be controlled so that it does not molest, attack, or infringe on the right of another who is not attacking you first...

    Therefore, all semi automatic weapons, pistols, rifles, even so called "assault rifles", one pull of the trigger per bullet, each shot is a conscious effort. "i shoot that, I shoot that," ie you are making the choice to shoot that which is offending your liberty with each conscious pull of the trigger are covered under the 2nd amendment.

    Clearly, this falls in line with what our founding fathers believed.... Lets take the next level of weapons, Fully automatic....

    One can argue that these weapons are indiscriminate that, you are not consciously "shooting that", but "shooting in that direction multiple shots with one pull of the trigger".... Each shot is not a conscious effort to defend you or your life, They have a much larger chance of "infringing" on a non belligerent aggressor (read innocent citizen), than a semi automatic rifle....

    ok so there is some argument for and against machine gun ownership in the US. I get that....Now here is where it becomes apparent why a nuclear weapon and other indiscriminate weapons are not covered by this amendment....


    a Nuke, kills innocents, causes harm for years, it's not just those you are defending yourself against. So they are out. obviously...


    this would include also, land mines, grenades, rocket launcers, "bazzookas", chemical weapons, or anything the opponents of the 2nd amendment can think of that are indiscriminate..So in conclusion:


    Nukes are not covered by the 2nd for private citizens, because they are not discriminant enough for use in self defense

  8. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    49,077
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  9. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    59,023
    Thanks
    78,872
    Thanked 37,533 Times in 24,074 Posts
    Groans
    2,530
    Groaned 4,359 Times in 4,039 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Wrong.
    I totally can.
    Don't make me prove it.
    You are totally wrong though.
    Only if it is made before 1986, and it may not be legal in the state you reside in, correct?

  10. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    12,237
    Thanks
    804
    Thanked 7,014 Times in 4,326 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,259 Times in 1,196 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Only if it is made before 1986, and it may not be legal in the state you reside in, correct?
    Yep. I'd also add that THIS is the very reason I used nuclear weapon as an example of an 'arm' you can't 'bear'. It was described as ridiculous, but as soon as I took it down a notch, it became an idiotic semantics discussion instead of focusing on the OP. You cannot purchase a fully automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. So both examples are relevant.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Concart For This Post:

    Phantasmal (04-09-2021)

  12. #100 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    49,077
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Only if it is made before 1986
    given that little bit of info, that a civilian can own an automatic manufactured before may 19, 1986, but prohibited from owning it if manufactured on may 20, 1986...............seems like a very arbitrary and unconstitutional law, right???
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  13. #101 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    59,023
    Thanks
    78,872
    Thanked 37,533 Times in 24,074 Posts
    Groans
    2,530
    Groaned 4,359 Times in 4,039 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    given that little bit of info, that a civilian can own an automatic manufactured before may 19, 1986, but prohibited from owning it if manufactured on may 20, 1986...............seems like a very arbitrary and unconstitutional law, right???
    Nope, not to me

  14. #102 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    12,237
    Thanks
    804
    Thanked 7,014 Times in 4,326 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,259 Times in 1,196 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Nope, not to me
    And not to the Supreme Court either. SmarterthanYou is obviously not a Constitutional lawyer. He doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Every law is not in effect the day before it takes effect. If that was the measure, every law would be unconstitutional.

  15. #103 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    59,023
    Thanks
    78,872
    Thanked 37,533 Times in 24,074 Posts
    Groans
    2,530
    Groaned 4,359 Times in 4,039 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    And not to the Supreme Court either. SmarterthanYou is obviously not a Constitutional lawyer. He doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Every law is not in effect the day before it takes effect. If that was the measure, every law would be unconstitutional.
    The as has been in effect since the 1930’s, hmmm, think the gangster era had anything to do with it? St. Valentine’s Day massacre?

  16. #104 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    49,077
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    Nope, not to me
    can you explain why?
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  17. #105 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    49,077
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    And not to the Supreme Court either. SmarterthanYou is obviously not a Constitutional lawyer. He doesn't know anything about the Constitution. Every law is not in effect the day before it takes effect. If that was the measure, every law would be unconstitutional.
    i'm very glad about not being a constitutional lawyer, since they seem to be the ones fucking shit up regarding the constitution. but since you're chiming in, maybe you can explain why YOU think it's not arbitrary, since there isn't a bit of difference between an M16-A2 built on May 17, 1986 and an M16-A2 built on May 20, 1986.....................
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

Similar Threads

  1. Do you know your Bill of Rights?
    By Practical in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-16-2020, 04:24 PM
  2. Repeal the Bill of Rights.....
    By PostmodernProphet in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 10:33 AM
  3. Homeless 'Bill of Rights'
    By Auster in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-24-2013, 12:16 PM
  4. The Billionaires Bill of Rights
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 04:09 AM
  5. Happy Bill of Rights day!!!!!
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 03:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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