Guns are EVIL!!!
Thread Starter
Old School Crew
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,251
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by benjamin
If you're going to do a scientific study of pro- and anti-gun media coverage over the last two years, thats fine. Otherwise, you're not actually making a "case," you're just making a bunch of assumptions and accusations. Maybe its because you're pissed off that people have an opinion thats different than yours. I don't know.
You have a tendency to lump everyone who disagrees with you into the category "liberal." It makes you sound like an idiot, and you should stop doing it.
I don't think thats true. I think its more likely that you wish there were only pro-gun coverage in the media, and anything less makes you really pissed off.
Uh, the video is somebody's opinion. You can't say "my opinion is x, and that guy agrees with me, so it MUST be right."
I don't understand. Are you saying that excessive gun ownership in Vermont et al is bad?
You have a tendency to lump everyone who disagrees with you into the category "liberal." It makes you sound like an idiot, and you should stop doing it.
I don't think thats true. I think its more likely that you wish there were only pro-gun coverage in the media, and anything less makes you really pissed off.
Uh, the video is somebody's opinion. You can't say "my opinion is x, and that guy agrees with me, so it MUST be right."
I don't understand. Are you saying that excessive gun ownership in Vermont et al is bad?
I was being sarcasic with my vermont/PA/Fl statement.
The video pointed out FACTS not opinion. Watch it agian.
And the rests of your comments are ignorant and childish.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ManInCamo
You make use of your first amendment. I want equal protection of my second amendment. That makes me a nut?
thats like saying: " :thumbsdown:free speach nuts.... "
thats like saying: " :thumbsdown:free speach nuts.... "
Thread Starter
Old School Crew
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,251
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by benjamin
How many times do I have to repeat this?
I. Am. Not. Anti-gun.
I. Am. Not. Anti-gun.
nope, I just pointed out that tahts the view anti-gun people have, not specificially mentioning you.
BTW: you may not be anti-gun, but you're sure as hell not pro-gun
Thread Starter
Old School Crew
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,251
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Qbacca
Are you a member of a well regulated militia?
Well actually, in the terminology of the 2nd amendment, yes. I am an able bodied male, proficient with my firearms.
I'm also in the Air Force.
So either way YOU want to look at it, yes.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
My point is that the second amendment holds no water because true "militas" and armed citizens no longer play an important role in interstate warfare.
I do not think that citizens should have the right to own firearms restricted, but I think that the 2nd amendment has been stretched well beyond its original intent for quite some time now, as evidenced by your comparison of free speech and bearing arms as equally important simply due to the fact that they're both in the bill of rights
The second amendment is a clausal statement.
Because a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
I do not think that citizens should have the right to own firearms restricted, but I think that the 2nd amendment has been stretched well beyond its original intent for quite some time now, as evidenced by your comparison of free speech and bearing arms as equally important simply due to the fact that they're both in the bill of rights
The second amendment is a clausal statement.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
Last edited by Qbacca; Feb 5, 2005 at 08:35 PM.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by Qbacca
I do not think that citizens should have the right to own firearms, but I think that the 2nd amendment has been stretched well beyond its original intent for quite some time now, as evidenced by your comparison of free speech and bearing arms as equally important simply due to the fact that they're both in the bill of rights
The second amendment is a clausal statement.
The second amendment is a clausal statement.
Because a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Thread Starter
Old School Crew
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 5,251
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Qbacca
My point is that the second amendment holds no water because true "militas" and armed citizens no longer play an important role in interstate warfare.
I do not think that citizens should have the right to own firearms, but I think that the 2nd amendment has been stretched well beyond its original intent for quite some time now, as evidenced by your comparison of free speech and bearing arms as equally important simply due to the fact that they're both in the bill of rights
The second amendment is a clausal statement.
Because a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
I do not think that citizens should have the right to own firearms, but I think that the 2nd amendment has been stretched well beyond its original intent for quite some time now, as evidenced by your comparison of free speech and bearing arms as equally important simply due to the fact that they're both in the bill of rights
The second amendment is a clausal statement.
Because a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
I think that you enjoy your freedom of speech far too much, and that your speech should be controlled by the Gov't instead. Free speech holds no relevance to your day to day life, like it once did, so you don't need it.
Same argument. You say I don't need a gun, I say you don't need free speech.
I say we most definitely need guns to keep us free. Look at dictatorships around the world, throughout history -- which I know you won't do any actually research on, but will call me a liar on anyway -- One of the first things done was to disarm the people. Disarmed people can't fight back against a repressive government. Also, what if all hell breaks loose and we have a war on US soil and half the military gets wiped out and its down to new-era of militias to defend us against invaders.
You only think you're safe right now because people with guns are there to defend the nation and the world a whole. You entrust the government to do everything for you, including provide 100% of your safety, and boom -- that’s socialism by definition. Even if you don't want to admit it. The amendments were passed in order of importance IMHO, and like I said earlier, you don't think that I need to own a gun, I don't think you need the right to free speech, or the rights of a trial by jury, etc.
People much wiser than you, who had been through a whole hell of a lot more tyranny, affirmed my RIGHT, not a privilege, of owning a gun to defend myself.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by ManInCamo
I think that you enjoy your freedom of speech far too much, and that your speech should be controlled by the Gov't instead. Free speech holds no relevance to your day to day life, like it once did, so you don't need it.
Same argument. You say I don't need a gun, I say you don't need free speech.
I say we most definitely need guns to keep us free. Look at dictatorships around the world, throughout history -- which I know you won't do any actually research on, but will call me a liar on anyway -- One of the first things done was to disarm the people. Disarmed people can't fight back against a repressive government. Also, what if all hell breaks loose and we have a war on US soil and half the military gets wiped out and its down to new-era of militias to defend us against invaders.
You only think you're safe right now because people with guns are there to defend the nation and the world a whole. You entrust the government to do everything for you, including provide 100% of your safety, and boom -- that’s socialism by definition. Even if you don't want to admit it. The amendments were passed in order of importance IMHO, and like I said earlier, you don't think that I need to own a gun, I don't think you need the right to free speech, or the rights of a trial by jury, etc.
People much wiser than you, who had been through a whole hell of a lot more tyranny, affirmed my RIGHT, not a privilege, of owning a gun to defend myself.
Same argument. You say I don't need a gun, I say you don't need free speech.
I say we most definitely need guns to keep us free. Look at dictatorships around the world, throughout history -- which I know you won't do any actually research on, but will call me a liar on anyway -- One of the first things done was to disarm the people. Disarmed people can't fight back against a repressive government. Also, what if all hell breaks loose and we have a war on US soil and half the military gets wiped out and its down to new-era of militias to defend us against invaders.
You only think you're safe right now because people with guns are there to defend the nation and the world a whole. You entrust the government to do everything for you, including provide 100% of your safety, and boom -- that’s socialism by definition. Even if you don't want to admit it. The amendments were passed in order of importance IMHO, and like I said earlier, you don't think that I need to own a gun, I don't think you need the right to free speech, or the rights of a trial by jury, etc.
People much wiser than you, who had been through a whole hell of a lot more tyranny, affirmed my RIGHT, not a privilege, of owning a gun to defend myself.
