Draconian Gun Legislation Proposed (financial, retire, problems, documents)

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Shhhhh grown ups are talking. Go back out and play.

Now you're sounding like someone I KNOW you don't agree with. HINT: moved to Fla.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Shhhhh grown ups are talking. Go back out and play.

Got it you have no answer and all you have left is sycophantic retorts.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

People are free to interpret as they will.

Words have meaning and the Constitution is the foundation or law in the United States.

Makes no matter if it was 200+ years ago or not.

If a provision is obsolete or no longer relevant... amend it or repeal it.

It's really getting to sound like a lot of sour grapes because people would rather complain or go around the Constitution rather than make the change...

And the constitution cannot be examined over time to determine if it is still relevant? If we hadn't examined this over time, we wouldn't have freedom of speech, abolition of slavery, legalization of alcohol or universal suffrage.

In my opinion, archaic amendments like the 2nd should be reconsidered for relevancy in 2013. Just because a law was written in the constitution in the 18th century, doesn't mean that it should necessarily be the sacred cow today.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Got it you have no answer and all you have left is sycophantic retorts.

Oh but you're not reading the whole thread. I've had plenty of answers for others. You should know by now that I will only ever give you the same smart ass remarks you make. I will not attempt to engage intelligently with you because that can't be done. Go ahead, keep trying though.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Now you're sounding like someone I KNOW you don't agree with. HINT: moved to Fla.

ya got me on that one

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

And the constitution cannot be examined over time to determine if it is still relevant? If we hadn't examined this over time, we wouldn't have freedom of speech, abolition of slavery, legalization of alcohol or universal suffrage.

In my opinion, archaic amendments like the 2nd should be reconsidered for relevancy in 2013. Just because a law was written in the constitution in the 18th century, doesn't mean that it should necessarily be the sacred cow today.

+1 that's what I should have said

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by snatale1

Lets see,

Competitive shooters
There getting real big in hunting due to accuracy at long ranges
Great for close quarters (home defense)

Who cares what the mag holds? The criminals will still have hi-cap mags PERIOD. Why punish the law abiding?

PS "Assault Rifle" implies an automatic weapon. AR's and AK's are semi hence the make believe term "Assault Weapon" If you actually are a gun owner then respect others rights to own what they want and oppose these idiotic proposals as they come up.

Competitive shooting with an assault rifle, I like that. "Hey Bubba, how fast can you put 100 holes in that old Ford". I love that (accuracy at long ranges) do a bit of homework, find out what the US military had to do in Afghanistan when they came up against men who had actual long range weapons.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The Militia Act of 1792 stated that all able bodied men were part of the militia. SCOTUS has already determined that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right. You should read the Federalist papers #46 to get Madison's take, here is an exerpt

Now it is one thing to think the subordinate clause of the amendment (one M) is still valid, it is quite another to think the primary clause is valid, I find that sort of thinking a hoot.

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

How wonderfully patrician of you.

Signed,

Humble Plebe.

Nonsense, I could rebuild a car engine with a bunch of vise grips, but, having the right tool for the job makes more sense.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

You can believe what you want to believe; however, gun ownership is not about needs or hunting. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, not needs, I did not see the word hunting mentioned anywhere.

People can carry on and on about their feelings or how they want to impose their mores on a group of people; but in the end our civil rights do not waiver to the feelings of the minority or even the majority. Our civil rights go beyond what is socially acceptable; they transcend the emotion of the day.

If you don't want a semi-automatic rifle, you don't have to have one; however, I will not let someone restrict my right to make that decision for myself. I am sure that you have some more labels for me, you can try to paint me in any way you like, you can tell me I need to get a life or that I am a gun nut. The difference between you and I is that I am not trying to tell you what to do or how to live your life, that is for you to determine. Let me make my own decision on what is best for me.

This sort of statement is made ad nauseum by the NRA sycophants. You will notice, I have never said anyone doesn't have the right to do stupid things, the question is, why would anyone consciously do the dumb thing? I don't argue your rights, I argue your common sense.


What the hell can you hunt with a .223? Heck I could nail a deer at a longer range than anyone could with one of those things, and my rifle is 119 years old.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Nonsense, I could rebuild a car engine with a bunch of vise grips, but, having the right tool for the job makes more sense.

.

Nonsense, I have rebuilt several engines and using only vise grips would get you nothing put a pile of parts.

Your nonsensical comparatives do nothing to help your argument.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Competitive shooting with an assault rifle, I like that. "Hey Bubba, how fast can you put 100 holes in that old Ford". I love that (accuracy at long ranges) do a bit of homework, find out what the US military had to do in Afghanistan when they came up against men who had actual long range weapons.



Now it is one thing to think the subordinate clause of the amendment (one M) is still valid, it is quite another to think the primary clause is valid, I find that sort of thinking a hoot.



Nonsense, I could rebuild a car engine with a bunch of vise grips, but, having the right tool for the job makes more sense.




This sort of statement is made ad nauseum by the NRA sycophants. You will notice, I have never said anyone doesn't have the right to do stupid things, the question is, why would anyone consciously do the dumb thing? I don't argue your rights, I argue your common sense.


What the hell can you hunt with a .223? Heck I could nail a deer at a longer range than anyone could with one of those things, and my rifle is 119 years old.

Again with name calling and hunting. You have no response besides degrading someone who ownes a semi automatic rifle and pretending that hunting is the the be all and end all argument. You don't have a leg to stand on and that makes you uncomfortable.

Out nation was built on the ideals of our founders, then institutionalized in our founding documents. I get that you don't agree with them. Thankfully this nation is based on the founders vision for our nation and not yours.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson

Though not a founder, this one especially rings true after reading your posts.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Oh but you're not reading the whole thread. I've had plenty of answers for others. You should know by now that I will only ever give you the same smart ass remarks you make. I will not attempt to engage intelligently with you because that can't be done. Go ahead, keep trying though.

I have followed the whole thread. Again like I proposed previously when I posted summaries of the Laws described in the OP you did nothing but deflect and ignore the question.

Now that I have your attention lets try again.

Have you read any of the SCOTUS decisions on 2nd ammendment case law with in the last 20 years. Just read the summaries and you'll be quick to find that NONE of your arguments with regards to the verbage in question are relative to the argument.

As well as your previous post that I related to abortion rights. Take your talking points and relate them to gay rights which BTW haven't been ruled as a natural right yet defined within the context of rights in the Constitution.