Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another uneducated moron that refuses to pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it.
Quote:
Article 4 - Section 4 - U.S. Contitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I don't see a damn thing about a democracy in that article. Of course perhaps this is why liberals are so hell bent on destroying the Constitution and everything it stands for.
If you would take your meds before going online, you might realize that I in no way advocate women being defenseless. There are far more effective ways of a woman protecting herself from rape than a gun. I would also beg you, for the love of all that is Good and Holy, please, please do not use hoplophobe in another post for the remainder of today, at least.
H
anyone can enter a gun shop and within 20 minutes, pass a background check and walk out with personal protection. Nobody I don't care who you are, can enter a martial arts studio and walk out with 20 or 30 years of self defense experience after 20 minutes of entering the studio. So your suggestion that martial arts would be a better option than a gun is totally ridiculous and more likely to get a woman killed than her being in possession of a gun.
I took martial arts too but I still rely on my guns for defense and personal protection. With all the STD's and blood borne viruses I would prefer not to let a AID's infected junky get within 5 feet of me and I certainly don't want to let them get close enough to bite me so I end up infected too.
When we enter the Matrix technological age and knowledge can be uploaded into human brains in an instant then you may have a plausible suggestion to use martial arts as a means of self defense. Until then I think the rest of us will stick to what is convenient and practical.
I have plenty of respect for them, I just don't have any respect for someone like you who claims to be more knowledgeable about the Constitution than the Supreme Court, Constitutional scholars, and historians, yet still manages to post absolute garbage in an attempt to argue a point that has already been argued and defeated countless times over. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the individual to carry firearms in order to provide for their own safety. Get over yourself and stop trying to prove others wrong by showing that you have less knowledge of the Constitution than my eight year old daughter does.
LOL! Oh, isn't that special! You're the one that called the Militia Amendment, "drivel," not me.
The Militia Amendment is about REGULATED MILITIAS, for the purpose of REGULATED MILITIAS, and that's made amply clear by the statement, whose subject is REGULATED MILITIAS, it discusses WHY the REGULATED MILITIA is important, and why curtailing the guns of individuals in the militia would be folly. What you're trying to pull in attempting to give it a different interpretation than what it is (and it is written in ENGLISH), is beyond me. Nowhere in the Militia Amendment does it say that guns are for individual use outside of the militia, nor that the amendment is about individuals.
Or feel the need to own or carry them. They are afterall less able to protect themselves by other means right?
Whether urban blacks or white country boys, gun ownership is mainly a man's passion, fetish really. Hollywood, video games, and the NRA just promote this huge culture and industry of cool deadly toys for boys.
Or let me guess, the NRA beleives women are sadly under-armed, and will ramp up campaigns targeting more female gun ownership.
OP, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. In recent years, interest in the shooting sports by woman have increased dramatically,so much to the point that rifles and handguns are being offered with bright pink stocks, grips, holsters, and frames.
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,860,367 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
LOL! Oh, isn't that special! You're the one that called the Militia Amendment, "drivel," not me.
The Militia Amendment is about REGULATED MILITIAS, for the purpose of REGULATED MILITIAS, and that's made amply clear by the statement, whose subject is REGULATED MILITIAS, it discusses WHY the REGULATED MILITIA is important, and why curtailing the guns of individuals in the militia would be folly. What you're trying to pull in attempting to give it a different interpretation than what it is (and it is written in ENGLISH), is beyond me. Nowhere in the Militia Amendment does it say that guns are for individual use outside of the militia, nor that the amendment is about individuals.
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.
See the comma between state and the? That separates the two statements.
.....nor that the amendment is about individuals.
So are you saying that in the other amendments where people is written it does not mean an individual right? For example in the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So using your definition people in the first amendment is not an individual right?
How about the Fourth Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So using your definition people in the Fourth Amendment is not an individual right?
The U. S. Supreme court has ruled that the Second amendment is an individual right.
the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
What part of this don't you understand?
the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia
For the definition of militia and well regulated you might want to read this.
We had a friend of ours who didn't like firearms and objected to the fact that I had a loaded handgun in my house when she was supposed to stay with us for a weekend. I asked her "What do you consider an unloaded handgun?" She answered "A safe one." My response was "Interesting, I call it a club." The handgun stayed loaded and she got a hotel room for the weekend. Everyone was happy.
With the exception of my AR15's, all of my firearms are loaded and none have trigger locks on them. The AR's only require me to grab a full mag from my storage place, insert it into the weapon and cycle the bolt. The rest require that I only cycle the bolt to make ready for any confrontation. My pistols are always ready, cocked and locked.
Anything less would render my firearms expensive paper weights that resemble scary looking guns.
come to think of it, I'm not even sure they sell trigger locks in my state.
Last edited by Basic Problem; 02-03-2013 at 01:32 AM..
Reason: added last line of text
anyone can enter a gun shop and within 20 minutes, pass a background check and walk out with personal protection. Nobody I don't care who you are, can enter a martial arts studio and walk out with 20 or 30 years of self defense experience after 20 minutes of entering the studio. So your suggestion that martial arts would be a better option than a gun is totally ridiculous and more likely to get a woman killed than her being in possession of a gun.
I took martial arts too but I still rely on my guns for defense and personal protection. With all the STD's and blood borne viruses I would prefer not to let a AID's infected junky get within 5 feet of me and I certainly don't want to let them get close enough to bite me so I end up infected too.
When we enter the Matrix technological age and knowledge can be uploaded into human brains in an instant then you may have a plausible suggestion to use martial arts as a means of self defense. Until then I think the rest of us will stick to what is convenient and practical.
The only ones that think "martial arts" training will protect them from violent criminals spent too much time whacking off to Steven Seagal films when they were little.
Is that so? Then why is it that Republicans seem to experience a lack of basic English when it comes to the Second Amendment and what it says?
Let me direct you to Mr. George Washington, one of the founding fathers and signers of the US Constitution on the matter of the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
George Washington (1732–99)
QUOTATION: It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency,…
If that is not plain and simple enough for anyone to understand that the use of common military style AR15 rifles by civilians (since obviously the Gov isn't going to "provide" citizens with full auto M16's), so that the people can "accustom" themselves with "uniform arms" (like the military's M16 which are commonly used to this day), so that we may be prepared in case of "short notice on any interesting emergency".
And it's not just republicans in DC that can't seem to understand common English language as they have all been learned in the art of legalese, redefined words and terms which have to be defined within the laws for anyone to understand the laws they relate to.
And in case you haven't watched the senate hearings on the gun control debate, it is not the republicans that are trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, it is the democrats. So it is obviously they who can not understand basic English.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
