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.
I've come to the conclusion that discussing this with TEPLimey is getting to the point of running around in circles. I don't know about you but I'm tired of banging my head up against the wall. One thing I've discovered is that you can't argue with ignorance. He's got it in spades.
They are from England... What do you expect.
They come here and think legislation can take your and my rights.
Ignorant of Freedom & Liberty, as they are use to be raise in bondage to government, thinking this place is like that.
America is a scary place! Liberty is not for the faint of heart.
Go back across the pond, you Limey! LOL! They are unarmed over there where you came from. You ain't changing my mind and you will die here, before you take our guns. 1776 will commence all over again. It will be Concord 2017.
Not sure why everyone assumes I am from Britain because of an internet screenname, but I'm not.
OK, which one is a Constitutionally protected explicit right and which one isn't? There's no "penumbra" involved.
Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, it merely makes you appear intellectually dishonest.
Again with the nonsense...
Where have I commented anything to suggest I am not aware of the 2A? What am I ignoring?
To focus on what is fact and what is not, sensible vs irrational, to separate the truth from the BS is not in any way "intellectually dishonest!" (I'm not sure there is any other way to be dishonest BTW).
If anything, taking someone's words and twisting them into something else is what I would call dishonest and not to intellectual.
You argued that the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment under Heller. I highlighted for you the relevant sections of Heller, explained why it holds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to certain categories of weaponry, and even brought to your attention several pieces of jurisprudence (including a directly on-point Fourth Circuit decision from this year) that addressed and rejected your interpretation of Heller. You apparently have no response.
If you want to call that "arguing in circles" and throw in the towel while resorting to personal attacks, so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Go back across the pond, you Limey! LOL! They are unarmed over there where you came from. You ain't changing my mind and you will die here, before you take our guns. 1776 will commence all over again. It will be Concord 2017.
I just put TEPLimey on my ignore list. It's a great feature, this way you do not have to read any of his nonsense. He just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. It's just not worth the aggravation.
Unless they have been recently modified, I don't believe M16s or M4s are full auto either, but are capable of 3 round bursts.
Nope, that was the M16A2, which was discontinued, an M4 and M16A1 are select fire, meaning it can be set to semi-auto or auto. Now, as a military firearms instructor we taught the troops to try and limit their full auto fire to 3 round bursts due to muzzle rise, but they can go through an entire mag is they so choice to.
Go back across the pond, you Limey! LOL! They are unarmed over there where you came from. You ain't changing my mind and you will die here, before you take our guns. 1776 will commence all over again. It will be Concord 2017.
I have read your comments on this subject many times, and obviously guns are to you what fashion is to runway models...
I understand and respect the many rational and reasonable reasons that gun owners (including me) have guns. What I don't respect is the inability of people who can't understand how millions of people in other advanced civilized countries are essentially living without the gun problem we have in America and ultimately better off all considered, with less incidents of mass shootings like we are beginning to accept as commonplace here.
This is NOT an argument for banning guns, but simply a note about how gun enthusiasts can easily cause others to be wary of their ability to think objectively and reasonably.
Much like people who want nothing to do with guns must attempt to understand those for whom guns are an important aspect of their lifestyles, gun enthusiasts need to be much better aware of how and why so many Americans do not appreciate having so many people with so many guns all around them, including the yahoos no doubt anxiously awaiting their next chance to prove how many people they can also quickly kill with a gun, maybe to set a new kill count record better than Paddock's...
Nope, that was the M16A2, which was discontinued, an M4 and M16A1 are select fire, meaning it can be set to semi-auto or auto. Now, as a military firearms instructor we taught the troops to try and limit their full auto fire to 3 round bursts due to muzzle rise, but they can go through an entire mag is they so choice to.
The M16 I shot in basic back in 1969, was semi-auto like the M14 I used.
Well with all the gun lovers in this forum-- what is your answer to stop these tragedies? What would you do, man every location with an armed guard? Please let us hear the solution to this horrible problem.
Deal with the mental health issue we keep sweeping under the rug, deal with violent criminals by locking them up for their full sentence with added time for using a firearm, enforce the constitutional gun laws already in place. Those actions would reduce gun deaths to the point of almost being non-existent.
The M16 I shot in basic back in 1969, was semi-auto like the M14 I used.
Unless they modified it then it was fully auto capable, mine were, and the M14 were also full auto capable, I used both extensively, and own the civilian semi-auto version of both types.
The men who wrote the Constitution (note all men) also wrote that blacks were deserving of only 3/5ths a white man's vote. Also not only fallible but lived over 200 years ago, when guns were actually used to hunt. Not for sport but to eat, kill indians and bears! Just saying...
Just saying that people who continue to insist what the founding fathers had in mind then, in the context of that day, as if pertaining in the same way to the realities of our times today, are badly mistaken and/or invoking the brilliance of our founding fathers to make an argument that simply doesn't work anymore now like it did then.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
I'm not sure what the point of your post is.......... What the founding fathers had in mind is clarified by all of the other documents they themselves wrote, it was not about hunting or Native Americans. As to the first line of your post the injustice to blacks (and later women) was put right by the prescribed procedure. If you want the Constitution changed / amended there is a procedure that should be followed. Do you agree?
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.
