U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-28-2007, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,239 times
Reputation: 175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
thanks for the reminder, some times I need to recharge my mind and spirit> honest citizens that want to restrict fellow honest citizens, you are wrong to try to take away my RIGHT to own guns.
Mr. Constitution-reader, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep & bear arms. Not necessarily guns.

So it's a question of how you define "arms". Anti-aircraft guns, stinger missiles, TNT and suitcase nukes also classify as arms. Do we want these arms freely accessible without restriction?

And don't be too quick to answer. The Constitution makes no distinction between any class of arms. We wouldn't want you treading on anyone's rights to own small weapons of mass destruction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2007, 12:59 AM
 
919 posts, read 1,668,204 times
Reputation: 478
Default thanks FFH

you finally are starting to get it. the 2nd does allow me to bear arms." Guns" Is a simple term for those that struggle with understanding the term "arms". and no I havent registerted my wmd's. Its hard to have a conversation with very narrow thinkers that believe my shotgun is a full auto assault weapon. suitcase nukes are messy to store so I do without. what do you believe are the limits for an honest citizen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 03:20 AM
 
9,716 posts, read 12,945,002 times
Reputation: 3315
Boy... This would be quite the world if we all had a suitcase nuke in our backyard, wouldn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 07:28 AM
 
137 posts, read 166,136 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Mr. Constitution-reader, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep & bear arms. Not necessarily guns.

So it's a question of how you define "arms". Anti-aircraft guns, stinger missiles, TNT and suitcase nukes also classify as arms. Do we want these arms freely accessible without restriction?

And don't be too quick to answer. The Constitution makes no distinction between any class of arms. We wouldn't want you treading on anyone's rights to own small weapons of mass destruction.


Arms. Well let's see what tools an American would need to defend Liberty against gun grabbers such as yourself. Would weapons that are used to inflict large casualties among the bystanders in this country, those willing to let others secure their Liberties, be needed? NO. Is that is not to say that we can start splitting hairs about the definition of an "Arm" as used in the Constitution. Quite simply, it is any weapon that the average soldier of any nation (America included) would use to suppress Liberty and Freedom. If the need for Stingers, TNT, and Nukes arrises, we will be able to pick them up off of the battlefield and not ask permission.

For educational purposes, for those who may not be as ignorant or flippent of their rights and the use of Arms. The average rifleman, capable of deadly accurate fire out to 500 yards, would be more that sufficient to defend against those would-be tyrants. The concept of the public defending the Constitution, with force, is quite simple. You have many more people, like me, running around with rifles and able to put a man down at 500 yards, put 10-12 of us together, and we would be a force that would be difficult to overcome. We would make the business of being a tyrant very costly and dangerous, thus giving would be tyrants second thought. History has demonstrated this time and time again, but I recon that might be a stretch for some to understand. The use of large scale destruction weapons is not needed for the protection of the Constitution and Liberty. The Founders in their debates on this very issue, were confident that access to the latest, most modern weapon used by the "soldiers" at any given time in the future would be sufficient to preserve Liberty. That is why they choose the word "Arms" over musket. They were wise enough to realize that technology would advance the quality and make up of Arms, and they wanted to accomodate that. If tomorrow the military started issuing cosmic ray, marshmellow shooters to the foot soldiers, then those too would be protected for the American people to have.


UB50..Have you found an Appleseed shoot that you want to attend? My offer stands, to pay for your shoot and hotel at the shoot, and even get you a rifle to shoot. Give you a chance to meet some of the people that you would like to see in the rail cars with you. Heck, I will even through in dinner.

Last edited by Yac; 01-29-2007 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 07:43 AM
 
137 posts, read 166,136 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Mr. Constitution-reader, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep & bear arms. Not necessarily guns.

And don't be too quick to answer. The Constitution makes no distinction between any class of arms. We wouldn't want you treading on anyone's rights to own small weapons of mass destruction.
Your lack of understanding of the Constitution and the Second Amendment is intriguing, yet sad. There is a great deal of information available for average Americans to read to gather a great understanding of the Original Intent of the Founders when they constructed and debated the Constitution. The two best ones are the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (available from Amazon for $6-7 each). These two works go into the inner workings of the debates. They record the thoughts and concerns of the Founders, and their intent is fully explained, so we may KNOW exactly what they meant, not just go by what we "feel" or the whims of public emotions (this was heavily discussed by them too). Perhaps as you are waiting for your next perm, you can pick one up and brush up on your knowledge of history and the foundations of this Republic. You would bring a smile to a bunch of dead white men from years gone by.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 12:07 PM
 
919 posts, read 1,668,204 times
Reputation: 478
ff, thanks for the reminder on the federalist papers. they do give insight to the founding fathers meanings. everyone, regardless of which side there on should read them. alot of what we discuss is conjecture on what they meant. they help, I have read alittle of them long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 594,239 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
you finally are starting to get it. the 2nd does allow me to bear arms." Guns" Is a simple term for those that struggle with understanding the term "arms". and no I havent registerted my wmd's. Its hard to have a conversation with very narrow thinkers that believe my shotgun is a full auto assault weapon. suitcase nukes are messy to store so I do without. what do you believe are the limits for an honest citizen?
I think a semiautomatic firearm is a fine limit for an honest citizen. But there's nothing in the Constitution that defines that limit. Just common sense.

I'm glad you've clarified your position. Neither you nor I will be surprised, then, when some kook with no prior criminal record decides to pull another Tim McVeigh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 01:10 PM
 
67 posts, read 260,620 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Mr. Constitution-reader, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep & bear arms. Not necessarily guns.

So it's a question of how you define "arms". Anti-aircraft guns, stinger missiles, TNT and suitcase nukes also classify as arms. Do we want these arms freely accessible without restriction?

And don't be too quick to answer. The Constitution makes no distinction between any class of arms. We wouldn't want you treading on anyone's rights to own small weapons of mass destruction.
Supreme court has said over and over that the arms that are covered in the constution are those that have a use in the milita! do your research before you lead people astray with your couch lawyer skills.and weapons of mass destruction are not covered because militas have no use for them .Im sure you mean well but you dont really know squat about the 2nd or the 14th.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 01:11 PM
 
67 posts, read 260,620 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
I think a semiautomatic firearm is a fine limit for an honest citizen. But there's nothing in the Constitution that defines that limit. Just common sense.

I'm glad you've clarified your position. Neither you nor I will be surprised, then, when some kook with no prior criminal record decides to pull another Tim McVeigh.
where in the constution does it say anything about common sense????The guns we have the duty to bear are those that have a usefullness in a milita.I know that word scares people but its in the law books .We really gotta wake up .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 01:13 PM
 
67 posts, read 260,620 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Mr. Constitution-reader, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep & bear arms. Not necessarily guns.

So it's a question of how you define "arms". Anti-aircraft guns, stinger missiles, TNT and suitcase nukes also classify as arms. Do we want these arms freely accessible without restriction?

And don't be too quick to answer. The Constitution makes no distinction between any class of arms. We wouldn't want you treading on anyone's rights to own small weapons of mass destruction.
Again arms are defined as a weapon that has a usefulness in the milita!
Please educate your self By the 2nd dvd!
ff maybe the perm fried his ummmm brain.No i really dont mean it as insult ffhd just please do your research.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top