How did I know that I could count on you to get a kick out of suggesting violence against homosexuals? Glad I could stimulate your redneck glands and get those juices flowing, Baron. Now go curl up with a banjo, and some moonshine or whatever it is you people do.
2nd Ammendment
- Thread starter jayleew
- Start date
the bmg is one awsome rifle. anyone that doesnt know what it is need to do a search.
also if you dont like huge guns,look up the blackwidow revolver by north american arms,its the smallest revolver on the market,hell, my mom hates guns but she likes the black widow!!!!
i take ALL of my rights very seriously,my gun just protects my other rights as an american,thats what they are for.
im considering joining the constitution party because the dumbacrats are a bunch of losers,and the necropublicans are phycotic corprates.
neither party has the nations best intrest at heart.
thomas jefferson said if you want TRUE democracy you need to have a revolution every 20 years.
well he was right.
the bill of rights forever,live free or die.
also if you dont like huge guns,look up the blackwidow revolver by north american arms,its the smallest revolver on the market,hell, my mom hates guns but she likes the black widow!!!!
i take ALL of my rights very seriously,my gun just protects my other rights as an american,thats what they are for.
im considering joining the constitution party because the dumbacrats are a bunch of losers,and the necropublicans are phycotic corprates.
neither party has the nations best intrest at heart.
thomas jefferson said if you want TRUE democracy you need to have a revolution every 20 years.
well he was right.
the bill of rights forever,live free or die.
Um, your argument may have worked better if instead of taking some drastic thing such as putting a .50 cal on a truck, you would have argued people not being allowed to own fully automatic weapons. Many assault rifles people own are fully automatic for miltitarized use but are tweaked to only be semi-automatic (can only fire one shot per trigger pull, which, by the way, many liberals tend to think semi-automatic means FULLY automatic). I'm surprised you didn't just use some silly argument of why citizens can't own nuclear missles.
But hey, as for your argument, it may be legal to mount a .50 cal onto one's vehicle in other states outside of Kalifornia, if you have the proper permit just as one can own a fully automatic weapon with a class III license (hard as hell to get, usually only firearms dealers have one). People can already own helicopters, tanks, airplanes, and all sorts of older military weaponry, they just need the proper permit. You can even drive tanks on highways! Heck, our own governor, Mr. Swartzenegger owns a couple German tanks that he used to drive while he was in the German military before moving to the United States.
I don't know about your "fag patrol" t-shirt, but they may be legal. I don't know why it wouldn't be. As for not being able to brandish a gun, that's a safety law. It doesn't restrict your freedom of being able to own a gun or defend yourself though. Go ahead and brandish your gun if you want, but you'll have the high risk of being shot having someone think you were threatening or holding someone up. I'd rather a law like that not be around because then we'd get rid of more idiots. Just like for those 59% that voted on the banning of handguns in San Franciso, I hope THEY become the victims of crime so their kind will no longer be around to procreate. Too bad the other half that voted will suffer for their ignorance.
But you see, that's the complete difference between a bullshit law in San Franciso vs a law about your .50 cal or fully automatic weapon restrictions. We CAN do all of the above, we just need the proper permit to be allowed to do so. San Franciso is banning COMPLETE ownership of handguns, period, even if you own a business you cannot defend yourself with one. Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to own them. I don't know how those with current concealed weapons permits are affected, but I'd assume they won't be able to use them either. Did you know that even before this ban in San Francisco, they were so restrictive that in their whole county, only TEN civilians were issued a concealed weapons permit? And I know one of them only because he's a bodyguard for a multi-millionaire technology buff in Silicon Valley. In most other counties, you'll have at least 500+ people that are issued those permits.
- N
P.S. I like you Mysech. I'm actually Liberal (but politically independent), but in the Thomas Jeffersonian way where I believe 100% in our Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc. I just hate the hippie liberals as they're the ones that try to restrict our freedoms. I'm not an ignorant type to pass laws like these that restrict our freedoms and our right to defend ourselves. They think criminals are gonna hand in their guns and the police will always be around to protect us. Yeah friggin right. Those types should be deported to New Orleans.
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?chuck u farley said:
Here is Amendment II, in its entirety, in case you have never seen it...
So, yes, jackass, it was very specifically about organized militia.
A "well regulated militia" is spells out pretty clearly the intent of the second amendment.
While I am not against individuals owning certain guns, using the Second Amendment to back your case is just plain bullshit, and people who try and use it to justify individuals owning assault rifles are either full of shit or stupid.
James R said:
You couldn't be more wrong. In the right hands guns can and do prevent violent crimes, many more each year than most people think (but those statistics are never spoken of). What makes crimes worse is when the criminals have guns and the honest citizens don't. BTW, how do you turn honest citizens into criminals? Answer: make more bad laws.
And... as I have understood it, the main intent of the founding fathers by the Second Amendment (which I think was worded poorly) was for the people to defend themselves from the possibility of a tyranical government. Since the National Guard is commanded by the Governor, well that's not following their intent, is it? But then again, in those days the standing malitia was a different animal.
I agree that it was the intention of the Second Amendment to offer protection from a tyrranical government by giving the right to the people to form organized militia.
One person, however, is not an organized militia.
Plus, as you eluded to, times DO change.
One person, however, is not an organized militia.
Plus, as you eluded to, times DO change.
Times never change. It's all the same. History always repeats itself. Things only change cosmetically. It's like a crack whore that puts make-up on to make herself look better, but she's still a crack whore when it all comes down to it.
Have faith in your government and your surrounding criminals. They won't do you no harm. The police will always be here to protect you. Times change!
- N
Have faith in your government and your surrounding criminals. They won't do you no harm. The police will always be here to protect you. Times change!
- N
Right.
So the situation we are in now is the same as it was in the 18th century?
It was awfully silly of the founding father to have built this government system as one that evolves, then.
They should have set it in cement, because nothing ever changes, right.
History DOES tend to repeat itself and man may never change, but our surroundings constantly do. The reality of governing a country (especially one as physically large, environmentally different and socially diverse as this one) must face that with teh most somber and serious respect.
So the situation we are in now is the same as it was in the 18th century?
It was awfully silly of the founding father to have built this government system as one that evolves, then.
They should have set it in cement, because nothing ever changes, right.
History DOES tend to repeat itself and man may never change, but our surroundings constantly do. The reality of governing a country (especially one as physically large, environmentally different and socially diverse as this one) must face that with teh most somber and serious respect.
you did not post the second amendment in its entirity.
there is a semi colon between ''free state'' and ''the right of the people''.
these are two DIFFRENT parts of the second amendment.
one says we should have a well orginized group of dedicated protectors[militia] AND citizens should have the right to HAVE WEAPONS.
and still,i have yet to see one scrap of sientific evidence to support
guns causing more crime.in fact every single piece of imperical eveidence suggects that guns PREVENT more crime then any other form of protection evr devised by humans.
violent crime in america is at an all time low,but guns have gotten more powerful,how?
try reasoning with an unarmed gun hater and they will stutter and gasp for a comeback to SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!!
show me ONE,just one study that even remotly suggest more guns=more crime and i will literly eat my hat.
there is a semi colon between ''free state'' and ''the right of the people''.
these are two DIFFRENT parts of the second amendment.
one says we should have a well orginized group of dedicated protectors[militia] AND citizens should have the right to HAVE WEAPONS.
and still,i have yet to see one scrap of sientific evidence to support
guns causing more crime.in fact every single piece of imperical eveidence suggects that guns PREVENT more crime then any other form of protection evr devised by humans.
violent crime in america is at an all time low,but guns have gotten more powerful,how?
try reasoning with an unarmed gun hater and they will stutter and gasp for a comeback to SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!!
show me ONE,just one study that even remotly suggest more guns=more crime and i will literly eat my hat.
Let's see...mars13 said:
Accoding to...
Cornell Law School
FindLaw
The University of Oklahoma Law School
The US House of Representatives
AND
The National Archives
...you are mistaken.
Besides, even if it WAS a semicolon, which it is obviously not, it would STILL not mean what you are claiming.
Please learn the proper use of semicolons as punctuation.
Thank you.
I prefer an honest approach.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to own guns.
There is everything wrong with trying to use a false interpretation of the constitution to try and justify that.
Make a real case, rather than manipulate facts.
I prefer an honest approach.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to own guns.
There is everything wrong with trying to use a false interpretation of the constitution to try and justify that.
Make a real case, rather than manipulate facts.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Yea, I know this is a pro-gun group, but they list their sources too.
"Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 "
These sources also point out that guns were used much more often (80 times more often) to prevent a crime than to commit one...
These figures would have to be about as conservative (meaning liberal?) as you could get. Estimates go as high as 2.5 million. But I just did a quick search.
About the Second Amendment, I've always wondered... was grammar that different at that time? Is not the wording poor grammar?
Yea, I know this is a pro-gun group, but they list their sources too.
"Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 "
These sources also point out that guns were used much more often (80 times more often) to prevent a crime than to commit one...
These figures would have to be about as conservative (meaning liberal?) as you could get. Estimates go as high as 2.5 million. But I just did a quick search.
About the Second Amendment, I've always wondered... was grammar that different at that time? Is not the wording poor grammar?