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 01-29-2007, 02:20 PM
 
67 posts, read 260,952 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
You'll also note that the 2nd Amendment makes no provision for criminals, children or the mentally handicapped.

So in your opinion, do all these types have the right to bear arms? If they don't show me the constitutional basis for your decision.

The "thoughts and feelings" of the electorate do matter. It's a representative democracy & we vote. Last I checked America wasn't a dictatorship of guys who died 200 years ago.
hey you are finally right .But the states do make provisions for this .so your only half right and thank god it s the half that dosent matter.
I need a haircut
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2007, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 595,868 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
FFH, I see that the written English is very difficult for you, perhaps if I type slowly, you can keep up (or maybe the above comment was just meant to be sarcastic??, I will go with my first thought).
Oh, let's not get nasty now or I'll pull a .45 caliber spellchecker on you. Mine's a full automatic, deadly accurate, and registered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
So now show us where the Constitution explicitly defines Arms as the "weapon an average soldier of the nation would use to suppress Liberty and Freedom". You show me that, and I'll concede this argument. If you can't, then please don't sell your radical interpretation as law.

But I have news for you, foreign armies do have access to anti-aircraft missiles, TNT and nuclear weapons. So when can I pick mine up at Biff's Gun n' Tackle?

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
An average rifleman capable of deadly fire at 500 yards? With what kind of weapon? An M-16? Hah! Have you ever shot one of those clunkers? You'd be lucky to sink a target at 300 yards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
Oh, I dunno. Against a squad of 10-12 trained infantrymen, supported by mortars and ground attack aircraft, I wouldn't fancy your chances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
We would make the business of being a tyrant very costly and dangerous, thus giving would be tyrants second thought.
And which tyrant would this be, the one you elected president? And if you're so paranoid about your government, why on earth do you live there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
"Large scale destruction weapons not needed for the protection of the Constitution and Liberty"? So what happened in Hiroshima exactly...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
Do you truly, truly, believe the Founders had any inkling of the destructive power that modern weapons would provide, hell, do you think they had any notion of an automatic weapon? Really? Where *do* you base this assumption? Give us a quote from these debates, a reference, anything but conjecture!

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
That is why they choose the word "Arms" over musket.
That's a stretch. The word "arms" has been used to define a whole range of weaponry, and recall soldiers then had swords & bayonets too.

When King Henry VIII referred to his "Men At Arms", do you reckon he meant to say "Men who could potentially, at some point in history, be carrying a pike, a musket, a SAW, or I-TOW anti-tank missile"?

That alone as a proof of argument is, frankly, flimsy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
How could they project how technology would advance the quality of weapons? In their day the musket, sword and cannon had changed very little over 200 years.

Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 01-29-2007 at 02:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 595,868 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by txlady View Post
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.
If Arms are so defined, please show me where it says so in the Constitution.

It is the source of truth in American law, after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 595,868 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by txlady View Post
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.
My legal library is just out of reach of my couch, so please, cite the cases.

txlady, I don't think you & I part ways on the definition of arms. Had you taken the time to read this thread, you'd see I fully support law-abiding citizens to have firearms. But they should be registered.

But at the insistence of others this conversation went into some crazy talk about allowing kids, crazies and criminals to have access to elephant guns.

Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 01-29-2007 at 03:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 595,868 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by funfaler View Post
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.
You know, I DID read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers. Funny, I don't recall either expanding upon the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow every American access to high-power automatic weapons. Maybe it was one late night in the library, or the day after a beer bong, but it doesn't ring a bell.

But as I've said before, let's have quotes, not conjecture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 595,868 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by txlady View Post
where in the constution does it say anything about common sense??
Lady, you just hit the nail on the head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 03:02 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,271 times
Reputation: 27
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.
FFH, Wow, you seem to struggle with focus. You just can't get over trying to link the Liberties of Americans to criminal activity. You really have no faith or trust in the average American do you? Do you distrust all people or just people that don't agree with you, or are in your "class"?

Let's try to focus, shall we?

The People of America are the originators of power and authority. They, through the States, have given, via the Contitution/Bill of Rights, certain duties and obligations to the Federal govenment. If it is not specifically given to the Federal government, it is reserved to the States (where such duties have been given to them by the People) or to the People (if such duties are not explicitly given to the States or Federal government). So, if there is a question as to who has the authority, it falls to the People.

So with that backdrop, the People are responsible for their personal safety, the safety of the State, and the safety of the Union. They have through the Constitution retained the ultimate control or power to secure the Liberties of the People of America, that is protection from enemies foreign and domestic of the Constitution. Those who choose to conduct terror here, against the People of America, are in direct conflict to the Constitution and the People.

Your reference to some "kook", has nothing to do with this topic or discussion, and only serves to identify you as someone who is unable or unwilling to discuss, in a civil manner, the Liberties that Americans enjoy. Your attempt to associate honest, gun owning American to terrorist is deplorable and you owe those here an apology. I hope that you can throttle your emotions, use your intellect, and obstain from trying to villianize those who disagree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Journey's End
10,189 posts, read 24,502,640 times
Reputation: 3826
Just for our mutual edification here are the amendments:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

It seems to me that several of these constitutional rights have been violated and recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 03:21 PM
 
67 posts, read 260,952 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
You know, I DID read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers. Funny, I don't recall either expanding upon the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow every American access to high-power automatic weapons. Maybe it was one late night in the library, or the day after a beer bong, but it doesn't ring a bell.

But as I've said before, let's have quotes, not conjecture.
Its the supremes courts holdings that a weapon that we have the duty to bear is "a weapon that has a usefullness in a milita" Because you havent educated your self on this is not the fault of anyone but you self.

"So now show us where the Constitution explicitly defines Arms as the "weapon an average soldier of the nation would use to suppress Liberty and Freedom". You show me that, and I'll concede this argument. If you can't, then please don't sell your radical interpretation as law."

suprem courts rules it as "a weapon that has a usefullness in a milita"

yes again ffhd you are right a m-16 is a clunker.But my super clunker ak-47 shot golf ball size groups at 400 yards at an appleseed recently.And yes its registered through the fdle.and the rifle that an avarge rifleman is excepted to be able to shoot at 500 yards is the almighty m1.but you knew that cause you were in the military right?
im not trying to ride you ffhd ,and no i cant spit out case law by the stacks.i studied anthropology not law .but i can provide with a rescource to give you all the info we all should have.please i really mean please,not so i can prove myself right or you wrong,
but because if you do this we will have one more very (on the topics of the 2nd and 14th add.)highly educated american in our midst .please watch this video .its dry 2 long hours of lawyers and law proffesors talking ,but if you can sit through it ,and i believe you can because you seem to have a true desire to know what the 2nd and 14th really mean.we can figure this out together.the dialouge has started and im happy for that because we must win the soft war because i dont think as the hard war as an option.ill buy the video for you if haircuts dont pay well enough.
sincerley
txlady
http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2007, 03:40 PM
 
137 posts, read 166,271 times
Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
You know, I DID read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers. Funny, I don't recall either expanding upon the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow every American access to high-power automatic weapons. Maybe it was one late night in the library, or the day after a beer bong, but it doesn't ring a bell.

But as I've said before, let's have quotes, not conjecture.
You are full of manure, you can not read these documents and miss the discussions on the followings:

A tyranical domestic government

The need to limit a standing army to keep the above government from using it against the People.

The need of the People to have access to the same "arms" as the government to withstand/deter the over reaching of powers by the Federal government.

The discussion of the likelyhood of the domestic government to tend to over reach its powers and purpose.

The need for the American public to be very protective of their Rights, and protective of any powers that they may consider granting to the government in the future.

Perhaps, as time permits, I will indulge you with some foot note, though I trust that your attitude will not allow them to set in.

As to some of the filppent questions (it tires and pains me to see you resort to such ignorant comments. Once again, playing stupid to bait a fight is a bit childish, and is wearing ones patience thin)

Hiroshima has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

You obviously have no useful knowledge of the use and effects of well aimed rifle fire. While the M16 is not the optimal weapon for accurate, effective shots out to 500 yards (I much prefer the M1A or FAL), it can be done with most military type rifles by the average shooter, with some proper training and practice.

The Founders had seen many advancements in warfare and weapons, and their discussions/debates on the Constitution are clear that they knew that the citizen soldier should have the same weaponry as the soldiers of the standing army.

Your comments about the Founders knowledge show your arrogance toward the Founders. They were very educated and knowledgable of their environment and history. They knew human nature, and the nature and tendencies of governments, much better that we today.


The question still remains as to why you are so fearful of the American People having Liberty and Freedom? To whom does this country belong, the People or the Government?
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