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.
1. Most PD AR15s are semi-auto, just like the ones most civilians have. Do you know the difference between "machine gun" and semi-auto?
2. Rifle / Assault Rifle? Big Guy / Big Black Guy? See how trigger words (no pun intended) are are used to make things sound scarier?
But if your point is that civilians need the same or better firepower than police, I can't argue with you. Also, if we need the same firepower, do we need the same training requirements?
I love your reply where you made such a thing out of the auto, semi-auto argument. I have a good link here for you to read and maybe you could explain after reading it why DHS needs those 7000 guns and all the ammo they are buying up. DHS is a part of our constabulary, aren't they? Anyway it appears that if the grabbers get their way we will have to fight back with nothing when they come to take us away.
When you read this link, be sure to read the thing by the New York state Senator about how he feels about the Cuomo law compared to this little deal. You know, like the fact that he want magazines to hold only 5 - 7 rounds and DHS is buying as many 30 round clips as they can get. I would have to change mags 6 times to shoot at one of those guys who considers me a terrorist because I complain about them and he makes no changes. Think about that one, if you can.
And you choose to live in a country that has a 2nd Amendment protecting the right of the individual to own and carry firearms. So, once again, I'll ask the question that you have avoided half a dozen times now:
Since you so vehemently dislike the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have stated numerous times that you have lived in other countries which are much better than the United States, why do you still live in the United States?
The Second Amendment protect the right of THE REGULATED MILITIA to have guns. What the hell are you talking about individual? Individual nothing. This is a MILITIA amendment. You don't like it? Tough. hEY, Take it up with the framers of the Constitution! Tell them all about how you don't like the fact that the only thing they left you with that mentions guns is associated with a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It doesn't even just say militia, it says WELL REGULATED, which means controlled by governing bodies, as it states int he Uniform Milita Act of 1792, and the Militia Act of 1903.
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.
The Second Amendment protect the right of THE REGULATED MILITIA to have guns. What the hell are you talking about individual? Individual nothing. This is a MILITIA amendment. You don't like it? Tough. hEY, Take it up with the framers of the Constitution! Tell them all about how you don't like the fact that the only thing they left you with that mentions guns is associated with a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It doesn't even just say militia, it says WELL REGULATED, which means controlled by governing bodies, as it states int he Uniform Milita Act of 1792, and the Militia Act of 1903.
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.
Yeah, you've said all the before, we've disagreed on all that before, and you've been shown by quite a few people here that you are mistaken.
Are you ever going to answer my question, or are you going to continue to say that you "missed" it? If you aren't going to answer it, I'll stop asking, but at least acknowledge that you won't answer the question for those of us who are curious.
Yeah, you've said all the before, we've disagreed on all that before, and you've been shown by quite a few people here that you are mistaken.
I have eyes. I am not mistaken. The day the Second Amendment has the following phrase removed:
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
Then we'll talk. Until then, I'm not blind, and I'm not mistaken.
Quote:
Are you ever going to answer my question, or are you going to continue to say that you "missed" it? If you aren't going to answer it, I'll stop asking, but at least acknowledge that you won't answer the question for those of us who are curious.
With pleasure!
Here's your question and I'm going to answer it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Since you so vehemently dislike the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have stated numerous times that you have lived in other countries which are much better than the United States, why do you still live in the United States?
I don't dislike the Constitution. I don't like people READING THINGS into the Constitution that aren't there, and REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE things in the Constitution that are. So your comment about not liking the Constitution is pure bs.
I have lived in other countries, but this is my country, and I don't like people perverting the Constitution by reading things into it that aren't there, and refusing to acknowledge things in the Constitution that are. There's no reason I have to leave simply because there are people like you, perverting the Constitution by refusing to acknowledge what the framers said in it. How about you leave, since you clearly don't like what they said?
I don't own any guns and I even know that training is much more than going to the gun range. A retired Navy Seal who hasn't gone to the range in 2 years is 10x more trained a Ted Nugent type who shoots daily.
Nice deflection.
A Navy SEAL is vastly more trained than almost anubody else on the planet.
We are discussing cops versus people who own firearms - and the level of practice of your average non LEO gun owner is usually greater than what a cop does.
The liberal deification of cops is rather disturbing.
I have eyes. I am not mistaken. The day the Second Amendment has the following phrase removed:
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
Then we'll talk. Until then, I'm not blind, and I'm not mistaken.
With pleasure!
Here's your question and I'm going to answer it:
I don't dislike the Constitution. I don't like people READING THINGS into the Constitution that aren't there, and REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE things in the Constitution that are. So your comment about not liking the Constitution is pure bs.
I have lived in other countries, but this is my country, and I don't like people perverting the Constitution by reading things into it that aren't there, and refusing to acknowledge things in the Constitution that are. There's no reason I have to leave simply because there are people like you, perverting the Constitution by refusing to acknowledge what the framers said in it. How about you leave, since you clearly don't like what they said?
So, you still disagree with the SCOTUS, constitutional scholars, and historical precedent and believe that your interpretation should be the one that is used by everyone when talking about the 2nd Amendment. Gotcha
Why do I stay in America? Because it is a better place to live than anywhere else. We have rights that are protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, including my right to own and carry a firearm as well as your right to post mistaken information on the internet.
I don't dislike the Constitution. I don't like people READING THINGS into the Constitution that aren't there, and REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE things in the Constitution that are. So your comment about not liking the Constitution is pure bs.
I have lived in other countries, but this is my country, and I don't like people perverting the Constitution by reading things into it that aren't there, and refusing to acknowledge things in the Constitution that are. There's no reason I have to leave simply because there are people like you, perverting the Constitution by refusing to acknowledge what the framers said in it. How about you leave, since you clearly don't like what they said?
The 2nd Ammendment is not part of the Constitution - it has been "read in"?
So, you still disagree with the SCOTUS, constitutional scholars, and historical precedent and believe that your interpretation should be the one that is used by everyone when talking about the 2nd Amendment. Gotcha
Why do I stay in America? Because it is a better place to live than anywhere else. We have rights that are protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, including my right to own and carry a firearm as well as your right to post mistaken information on the internet.
The Supreme Court has been wrong many times in their interpretations and has had to reverse their decisions, as I already explained amply, including the process via which this is done. Justice Sotomayor was discussing that very thing yesterday.
As for why you stay in the U.S., I actually don't know. You live in terror here, you want to arm the country because you live in terror, you feel that you MUST be armed because of the horrible dangers, so it must not feel to you to be such a good place for you after all.
And lastly, once again, the Second Amendment is about MILITIAS, not private ownership. There's nothing in there that speaks to individual ownership:
The Second Amendment protects the right of THE REGULATED MILITIA to have guns. This is a MILITIA amendment.
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.
The Supreme Court has been wrong many times in their interpretations and has had to reverse their decisions, as I already explained amply, including the process via which this is done. Justice Sotomayor was discussing that very thing yesterday.
So let us all know when they reverse their decision on the 2nd Amendment. Until and unless they do, your argument has no legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
As for why you stay in the U.S., I actually don't know. You live in terror here, you want to arm the country because you live in terror, you feel that you MUST be armed because of the horrible dangers, so it must not feel to you to be such a good place for you after all.
Yet more proof that you've never actually read anything I've posted, since we've had this conversation already. You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
And lastly, once again, the Second Amendment is about MILITIAS, not private ownership. There's nothing in there that speaks to individual ownership:
The Second Amendment protects the right of THE REGULATED MILITIA to have guns. This is a MILITIA amendment.
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.
The right of the people is the part that is pertinent to this discussion, and is also the part that speaks to individual ownership.
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.
