Gun Control by Wulfenstar

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You have a "God given" right to a gun?

Where in the bible is that?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

It is in the Bill of Rights, where the enumerated rights are natural rights, not rights granted by the government.

Gun control isn't about guns. It is about control.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

I second this post...Kwicko you know we are not governed by the bible, but we are by our Constitution....and "Natural right" happens to be wulfs god....can't kill him for that....I'd like to hear your argument against "our" natural rights"....without snark.

I just think the further we get from the framers ideas the worse things are.....Think our courts, silly laws, unjust taxes (corps...paying nothing?) etc....I think we should all go back to the things that attracted us to FF to begin with and if we fought for that we would ALL be better off...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:28 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Have fun. Its amusing. I fight/argue/stand for the general populations ability to excercise self-defense, freedom, and a natural right. In doing so, Im called "ignorant".
No, I'm not calling you ignorant because you own a gun. I'm calling you ignorant because you're ignorant. And your reading comprehension is abysmal too.
Wulf, I own a gun. At times, I've owned more than one.
Quote:
Hey, you are completely free NOT to own a gun. Just don't go telling me I can't.
See? There you are with that reading comprehension problem again. Did I say you shouldn't own a gun? Anywhere? At any time? If you really think I have (as you seem to keep insisting) please quote me here ... or please kindly STFU.

My point is not that guns aren't useful, but that they are only useful for SOME things... like individual self defense. They're not even good for "protecting your liberties", because as an individual you are pretty much helpless. You will only be effective if you're organized, and combine your efforts with the efforts of others. If you can't do that, you won't get anywhere.

BTW- My hubby's favorite is an Ithica over-under 12 gage and he loads his own ammo, but he only likes to shoot clay pigeons. And I only like to plink. Come mess with us, though, and we'll both make an exception.

Can't disagree with a single thing in this post, Signy!

I've got several guns. I'm a big 2A supporter. I just don't want anyone defending MY right to keep guns on the basis that it's a "god given" right.

And yeah, I prefer paper targets, but am willing to make an exception on occasion...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:33 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well, the idiot KM is late to the party due to the fact that he's illiterate -

Here ya' go, read this again SLOWLY
Wulf: "Try and take (control, limit my access to, or otherwise inhibit my ***God***-given right to) my tool of self-defense... I swear to almighty ***God***..."

And while you're at it, please find for me the part where I try to take anyone's gun away. Then post it. Or look like the brain-dead loser you are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Wow, DT. I am so glad SCOTUS disagrees with you, as they did in Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago. Thanks to those decisions the right to keep and bear arms definitely belongs to the people, for the purpose of self defense. And now the states have to make their laws conform to those decisions.

Doubly ironic, as Illinois is one of the 5 states that does not have right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution or has it in a limited manner.

Hey, I'm with ya, and I'm with SCOTUS on the Heller and the McDonald decisions.

But there's a move afoot now from conservative corners to cite the more convenient parts of the 10th Amendment, which avers states' rights. They want to use carefully-interpreted language in the Amendment to claim that states can "opt out" of certain provisions within the Constitution (this is coming via revisionist conservative historians like David Barton) if they don't feel like following such provisions.

The danger here, of course, is that the reading they can use to skirt the First Amendment, other states can use to skirt the Second. Or the Fourth. Or the Eighth. And so it goes...

I've said before I think that our grand experiment in a representative republic is coming to an end. If the elected decide to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow, that is surely a harbinger of the end of the republic. I guess it has been going on a long time. Just like the Roman republic we are modeled on, the rot goes on for a long time before the system fails.

Sad too, I kind of liked it when the system worked.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I second this post...Kwicko you know we are not governed by the bible, but we are by our Constitution....and "Natural right" happens to be wulfs god....can't kill him for that....I'd like to hear your argument against "our" natural rights"....without snark.

Without snark? That's a tall order...

We ARE governed by our Constitution. OUR Constitution. Not "god's", OURS. Written BY MEN, FOR MEN. Not written by "god", not governed by "god", no "god" even being mentioned in the document. It is a government invented by Man, to govern Man.

You can talk about "natural rights" all day long, but what you call "natural rights", other nations call other things, and some nations call them nonexistent.

We do not apply these so-called "natural rights" equally, either. We as a nation officially don't believe these "natural rights" apply to anyone other than those lucky enough to be born here. So they aren't any kind of "universal rights", clearly. They are AMERICAN RIGHTS, and are only such because AMERICAN MEN wrote them into a document.

Wulf's "god" isn't "natural rights"; he's said before that he believes in god. Nevertheless, I'd not "kill him" for believing in god. I would, however, argue that his god didn't give him the right to own a gun in America. No "god" gave him that right - a group of men did. Even if all they did was recognize and acknowledge a right they believed already existed, that was still a group of men doing so, for the first time. It wasn't a god who wrote the document, but a group of men.

As such, the right to keep and bear arms is a man-created, man-recognized, man-given right. No god can give it, or take it away, but men can do both.

For those who think I'm splitting hairs or quibbling over subtle nuances, ponder this:

Geezer said that the Constitution was men recognizing or acknowledging rights already believed to be in our possession. Or that's pretty close to what he posted; I agree, for the most part, and thought his reply was the most succinct and on-point of all.

Anyway, to state that a right exists should IN NO WAY be construed as calling such a right "god-given".

You know how I know this? Because if I said that gays have the right to marry, and that it's self-evident that this should be so and should be universally recognized, and the courts agreed and said that the Constitutional protections would guarantee this to be the case, would you then say that gay marriage is a God-given right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

We as a people have the rights that we can fight for, and grab, and keep. We don't fight gods for them, we don't grab our rights from any gods, and we don't keep them from gods - we fight men, grab our rights from men, and keep them safe from other men, FOR other men.

Thus endeth the lecture.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

I've said before I think that our grand experiment in a representative republic is coming to an end. If the elected decide to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow, that is surely a harbinger of the end of the republic. I guess it has been going on a long time. Just like the Roman republic we are modeled on, the rot goes on for a long time before the system fails.

Sad too, I kind of liked it when the system worked.

In that, sir, I'm afraid we are in sad agreement.

Every time one group or another decides to just ignore a law or statute, they can always be counted on to parse the words of some law or another to slant things their way.

And so it goes...

One thing that stands out about the Second Amendment, though, when compared with the First, is the wording. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." - in a selective enough reading, that opens it up for THE STATES to make laws regarding religion, etc.

The Second, though, simply states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not "Congress shall not infringe...", but "SHALL NOT BE infringed." By anyone. Any government, be it federal, state, or local.

'Course, that whole "well regulated militia" part could prove tricky. Sure, we're all the militia - every able-bodied man, anyway - but who's to say what "well regulated" means?

I consider myself to be fairly well regulated, but others might not agree. ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I second this post...Kwicko you know we are not governed by the bible, but we are by our Constitution....and "Natural right" happens to be wulfs god....can't kill him for that....I'd like to hear your argument against "our" natural rights"....without snark.

Without snark? That's a tall order...

We ARE governed by our Constitution. OUR Constitution. Not "god's", OURS. Written BY MEN, FOR MEN. Not written by "god", not governed by "god", no "god" even being mentioned in the document. It is a government invented by Man, to govern Man.

You can talk about "natural rights" all day long, but what you call "natural rights", other nations call other things, and some nations call them nonexistent.

We do not apply these so-called "natural rights" equally, either. We as a nation officially don't believe these "natural rights" apply to anyone other than those lucky enough to be born here. So they aren't any kind of "universal rights", clearly. They are AMERICAN RIGHTS, and are only such because AMERICAN MEN wrote them into a document.

Wulf's "god" isn't "natural rights"; he's said before that he believes in god. Nevertheless, I'd not "kill him" for believing in god. I would, however, argue that his god didn't give him the right to own a gun in America. No "god" gave him that right - a group of men did. Even if all they did was recognize and acknowledge a right they believed already existed, that was still a group of men doing so, for the first time. It wasn't a god who wrote the document, but a group of men.

As such, the right to keep and bear arms is a man-created, man-recognized, man-given right. No god can give it, or take it away, but men can do both.

For those who think I'm splitting hairs or quibbling over subtle nuances, ponder this:

Geezer said that the Constitution was men recognizing or acknowledging rights already believed to be in our possession. Or that's pretty close to what he posted; I agree, for the most part, and thought his reply was the most succinct and on-point of all.

Anyway, to state that a right exists should IN NO WAY be construed as calling such a right "god-given".

You know how I know this? Because if I said that gays have the right to marry, and that it's self-evident that this should be so and should be universally recognized, and the courts agreed and said that the Constitutional protections would guarantee this to be the case, would you then say that gay marriage is a God-given right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

We as a people have the rights that we can fight for, and grab, and keep. We don't fight gods for them, we don't grab our rights from any gods, and we don't keep them from gods - we fight men, grab our rights from men, and keep them safe from other men, FOR other men.

Thus endeth the lecture.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

My bad. You missed my point. like an alcoholic each needs his own Higher power. I think the framers were saying that we have every right to our choices and bodies...unless we hurt another's person or property...that is why we have MOST laws for a personal action......not to control the masses....Simple put without "God" (which does not exist).....don't tread on me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:11 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I have this sort-of idea that the problem is that we people fall into the habit of mistaking words for reality. We say FREEDOM, EQUALITY, FAITH, PROFIT, CAPITALISM, (pick your theme here), and expect other people to put their faith in those words, to live by them, work for them, kill - and die - for them, and, oddly enough --- they do. Without anything other than someone's say-so. That that word of random choice is a good thing and it'll all be worth it, some day. Maybe not right away, maybe not even in your lifetime, but in the distant bright future. Trust me.

We live on faith.

We never seem to get around to asking - in concrete terms, how specifically is this (pick your theme here) going to make my reality better?

Maybe FREEDOM isn't an ideal. Maybe it's a job, or at least a project. With specific goals, plans, tasks, mile-markers. And as experience is gathered, circumstances change, knowledge grows, the task needs to be debated, reoriented, adjusted.

Maybe the idea shouldn't be to look at somebody's dead words from the past and try to disinter them, prop them up, make them dance, but to come to the specifics that make a better reality live today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I have this sort-of idea that the problem is that we people fall into the habit of mistaking words for reality. We say FREEDOM, EQUALITY, FAITH, PROFIT, CAPITALISM, (pick your theme here), and expect other people to put their faith in those words, to live by them, work for them, kill - and die - for them, and, oddly enough --- they do. Without anything other than someone's say-so. That that word of random choice is a good thing and it'll all be worth it, some day. Maybe not right away, maybe not even in your lifetime, but in the distant bright future. Trust me.

We live on faith.

We never seem to get around to asking - in concrete terms, how specifically is this (pick your theme here) going to make my reality better?

Maybe FREEDOM isn't an ideal. Maybe it's a job, or at least a project. With specific goals, plans, tasks, mile-markers. And as experience is gathered, circumstances change, knowledge grows, the task needs to be debated, reoriented, adjusted.

Maybe the idea shouldn't be to look at somebody's dead words from the past and try to disinter them, but to come to the specifics that make a better reality live today.

Sig go to bed already....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA --- you deluded fool. But hey, go ahead, call me Sig. It'll make me laugh at you even more.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA --- you deluded fool. But hey, go ahead, call me Sig. It'll make me laugh at you even more.

I am kaneman....do you think for One second I care if 1kiki laughs at me? I am an Internet legend, a club scene legend ( I almost kept the CBGB open on my own(with the help of whoracle)...how do you think I get all this young pussy?), I make more money in one year then you will make in 10, I am 39 and bang 21-24 year olds daily, I am rude, I am obnoxious, have tats all over my body, and live a life that most dream of.......I also have an ex-wife who is the vice-president of sales for Kohler Co. ..who still chooses to live in the greatest state on earth(because she still loves me) so I see my sons every week (happen to go to masters school...costs a bunch, but damn they are smart)....so giggle away you tard. I will live my rock star life....here on the east coast...wait for my MAIN baby(only one I love) to be freed....but do my thing anywho...she knows what I am...just ask illabus, lori bennet, or giadie....we are going out tom. night and Marilyn told me to fuck em all for her.....I'm laughing

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:20 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Yeah, I get it, it's all about you. Even your GF is just a mirror for the wonderfulness of you. Otherwise, why should she even exist at all? So, this is a bit off topic for this thread but I gotta' ask - if you're so rich why can't you afford even a mediocre lawyer for GF?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"God-given" = "natural-right" = "inherent-right"

As in, a "right" that can neither be given, nor taken away.

Tho, some governments have tried. Im thinking of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge etc..

Also, the argument that the 2a was meant only for the militia, has been curb-stomped to death by Heller...

and, further,

even if it were ONLY for the militia... every able-bodied male over the age of 18 in America is, by law, part of the militia and expected defend her.

A single person with a gun can't change history? Have you studied history?

I also notice noone commented on the fact that California, with some of the worst gun-control laws, is releasing about 41,000 prisoners back onto its streets.

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/Crime_Rates_Drop_as_Gun_Buy
_Rates_Rise_notes_Gun_Law_Expert,201136492.aspx

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I second this post...Kwicko you know we are not governed by the bible, but we are by our Constitution....and "Natural right" happens to be wulfs god....can't kill him for that....I'd like to hear your argument against "our" natural rights"....without snark.

Without snark? That's a tall order...

We ARE governed by our Constitution. OUR Constitution. Not "god's", OURS. Written BY MEN, FOR MEN. Not written by "god", not governed by "god", no "god" even being mentioned in the document. It is a government invented by Man, to govern Man.

You can talk about "natural rights" all day long, but what you call "natural rights", other nations call other things, and some nations call them nonexistent.

We do not apply these so-called "natural rights" equally, either. We as a nation officially don't believe these "natural rights" apply to anyone other than those lucky enough to be born here. So they aren't any kind of "universal rights", clearly. They are AMERICAN RIGHTS, and are only such because AMERICAN MEN wrote them into a document.

Wulf's "god" isn't "natural rights"; he's said before that he believes in god. Nevertheless, I'd not "kill him" for believing in god. I would, however, argue that his god didn't give him the right to own a gun in America. No "god" gave him that right - a group of men did. Even if all they did was recognize and acknowledge a right they believed already existed, that was still a group of men doing so, for the first time. It wasn't a god who wrote the document, but a group of men.

As such, the right to keep and bear arms is a man-created, man-recognized, man-given right. No god can give it, or take it away, but men can do both.

For those who think I'm splitting hairs or quibbling over subtle nuances, ponder this:

Geezer said that the Constitution was men recognizing or acknowledging rights already believed to be in our possession. Or that's pretty close to what he posted; I agree, for the most part, and thought his reply was the most succinct and on-point of all.

Anyway, to state that a right exists should IN NO WAY be construed as calling such a right "god-given".

You know how I know this? Because if I said that gays have the right to marry, and that it's self-evident that this should be so and should be universally recognized, and the courts agreed and said that the Constitutional protections would guarantee this to be the case, would you then say that gay marriage is a God-given right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

We as a people have the rights that we can fight for, and grab, and keep. We don't fight gods for them, we don't grab our rights from any gods, and we don't keep them from gods - we fight men, grab our rights from men, and keep them safe from other men, FOR other men.

Thus endeth the lecture.

Good lecture. Like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
... if you're so rich why can't you afford even a mediocre lawyer for GF?

Kinda wondered the same thing. Kaney- a legend in his own mind. It's sad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:42 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
For those who think I'm splitting hairs or quibbling over subtle nuances, ponder this:

Geezer said that the Constitution was men recognizing or acknowledging rights already believed to be in our possession. Or that's pretty close to what he posted; I agree, for the most part, and thought his reply was the most succinct and on-point of all.

Anyway, to state that a right exists should IN NO WAY be construed as calling such a right "god-given".

You know how I know this? Because if I said that gays have the right to marry, and that it's self-evident that this should be so and should be universally recognized, and the courts agreed and said that the Constitutional protections would guarantee this to be the case, would you then say that gay marriage is a God-given right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

We as a people have the rights that we can fight for, and grab, and keep. We don't fight gods for them, we don't grab our rights from any gods, and we don't keep them from gods - we fight men, grab our rights from men, and keep them safe from other men, FOR other men.

Thus endeth the lecture.

Splitting more hairs, does the bible really condemn gay marriage? What is God's view on homosexuality? The subject must be sooooo important seeing as how it was only mentioned 7 times, and never by Jesus or the major prophets, and not as we understand it today, and is almost exclusive to the old testament... but I digress.

Even if I believe my religion does grant the right to gay marriage, or even guns for that matter, I do agree that our laws should not be based exclusively on my religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF, going bottom -up

Quote:
I also notice noone commented on the fact that California, with some of the worst gun-control laws, is releasing about 41,000 prisoners back onto its streets.

So? If the gun-control laws in CA are so bad, how izzit that I own a gun? I haven't noticed any lack of gun ownership. What's your point?

Quote:
even if it were ONLY for the militia... every able-bodied male over the age of 18 in America is, by law, part of the militia and expected defend her.

Really? What law is that? I hope you can quote that for me here. And, how does a group of disorganized individuals constitute a "well regulated" militia?

Quote:
A single person with a gun can't change history? Have you studied history?

Yes, I have, but the history that I studied didn't consist of endless repetitions of Red Dawn and Star Trek. There are only a few cases where a single person with a gun has changed history, and those are assassinations. And attempts tend to happen more where they are least needed- against popular leaders in democratic countries- Reagan, JFK, Bobby Kennedy. You saying we should vote by assassination? Anyway, please come up with a couple of examples of tyrannies which were destroyed by a single person with a gun.

Quote:
Also, the argument that the 2a was meant only for the militia, has been curb-stomped to death by Heller...

I have never heard of Heller, so please either summarize his argument here or provide a link.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"God-given" = "natural-right" = "inherent-right" As in, a "right" that can neither be given, nor taken away. Tho, some governments have tried. Im thinking of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge etc..

First of all, unlike the FF and the philosophers of the French Enlightenment, I don't think there are any such things as "natural rights" (god-given or otherwise). Nothing in history demonstrates that there are. If you can, please provide evidence for the existence of "natural rights".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:26 AM

Hey Sig, try open carrying your gun with a loaded mag locked and one in the chamber. I'd hope the cops wouldn't shoot on sight, but I'm not taking those odds.

In Delaware, I open carry almost every day. Unless I am going to a prohibited location, like the courthouse or behind enemy lines into Maryland or New Jersey. Even Pennsylvania is open carry friendly.

California? Not so much.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"So? If the gun-control laws in CA are so bad, how izzit that I own a gun? I haven't noticed any lack of gun ownership. What's your point?"

Ahem:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/

"Really? What law is that? I hope you can quote that for me here. And, how does a group of disorganized individuals constitute a "well regulated" militia?"

To quote:

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, or are, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States, also included are those who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

"I have never heard of Heller, so please either summarize his argument here or provide a link."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
... if you're so rich why can't you afford even a mediocre lawyer for GF?
Kinda wondered the same thing. Kaney- a legend in his own mind. It's sad.

You have to be the same idiot....I have already posted to Kwicko that I got the lawyer, but could not bond her out....How thick are you one person? It is hilarious how fucking stupid you are. Do i have to e-mail the retainer? Idiot-s yeah I hyphened.....I am going to pimp you if it is the last thing I do...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
... if you're so rich why can't you afford even a mediocre lawyer for GF?
Kinda wondered the same thing. Kaney- a legend in his own mind. It's sad.

. Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Okay, if you can't do both a good lawyer AND getting her sprung from jail, the smarter move is to get the good lawyer. A little jail time now for a much better attorney than a public defender seems like a decent trade-off (albeit it's still a shitty deal for her, since she's stuck in jail). But a good attorney can likely make *most* of this bullshit disappear, which is far, far, FAR better for her in the long run.

Make goddamned sure that everything gets knocked down to misdemeanor charges. No felonies, period. That would fuck her for life. Misdemeanors can be overlooked. Hell, probation or deferred adjudication would be preferable - anyone with willpower can do four or five years probation standing on their head.

That's what I did...the "violation of protective orders" against her mom 4 are class d felonies here in ct....so i don't know. She knows it is best for her to sit.. the judge gave her every chance to do her programs and stay out of trouble, but my freak has to act up everywhere. Just a wild child. I tried to make sure she did everything she was to do after she moved in, but she is one unique chick....But, she is smiling and at peace. Now at court it was horrible....she fell apart I couldn't even hold her up. She thought she would get a continuance....It was sad to see her so upset, because she is a very strong woman..but thanks Kwicko for being cool despite our multi-year spit fest...I give props.

Okay .....a day before your blather....love that you prove yourself stupid.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:49 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

bump past Kanes cry for help and to get back on topic...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
bump past Kanes cry for help and to get back on topic...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Hilarious....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Hey Sig, try open carrying your gun with a loaded mag locked and one in the chamber. I'd hope the cops wouldn't shoot on sight, but I'm not taking those odds.

In Delaware, I open carry almost every day. Unless I am going to a prohibited location, like the courthouse or behind enemy lines into Maryland or New Jersey. Even Pennsylvania is open carry friendly.

California? Not so much.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Speaking of which, my state (Texas) just passed a law so folks can carry on college campuses. We have a Republican supermajority here. Oddly, though, while pushing for MORE places to be free for gun-carriers, they also voted to put in more metal detectors at the state capitol building. So it seems they think WE'RE all safer with more guns in more places, but they sure as fuck don't want our guns anywhere near THEM!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"So? If the gun-control laws in CA are so bad, how izzit that I own a gun? I haven't noticed any lack of gun ownership. What's your point?"

Ahem:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/

I think Signy was asking what your point is about any possible connection you see between California's gun laws and the SCOTUS decision that they must reduce their prison population. Do you imagine they're releasing a lot of people convicted of gun crimes and violent crimes? I can just about guarantee you they aren't - they'll release non-violent and drug cases first.

Quote:

"Really? What law is that? I hope you can quote that for me here. And, how does a group of disorganized individuals constitute a "well regulated" militia?"

To quote:

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, or are, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States, also included are those who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

So, citing that, are you now willing to give up your guns when you turn 45? (For the record, I'm not!)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Splitting more hairs, does the bible really condemn gay marriage? What is God's view on homosexuality? The subject must be sooooo important seeing as how it was only mentioned 7 times, and never by Jesus or the major prophets, and not as we understand it today, and is almost exclusive to the old testament... but I digress.

EXACTLY - but can you imagine how upset certain groups would be if folks claimed a god-given right to gay marriage?

Quote:

Even if I believe my religion does grant the right to gay marriage, or even guns for that matter, I do agree that our laws should not be based exclusively on my religion.

More agreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Hey Sig, try open carrying your gun with a loaded mag locked and one in the chamber. I'd hope the cops wouldn't shoot on sight, but I'm not taking those odds.

In Delaware, I open carry almost every day. Unless I am going to a prohibited location, like the courthouse or behind enemy lines into Maryland or New Jersey. Even Pennsylvania is open carry friendly.

California? Not so much.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Speaking of which, my state (Texas) just passed a law so folks can carry on college campuses. We have a Republican supermajority here. Oddly, though, while pushing for MORE places to be free for gun-carriers, they also voted to put in more metal detectors at the state capitol building. So it seems they think WE'RE all safer with more guns in more places, but they sure as fuck don't want our guns anywhere near THEM!

Hmm New Hampshire makes Texas and Delaware both look weak. They allow carry, open or concealed, in the state house. Ruffled the feather of a couple of Massachusetts transplants who had been elected to the state house. I'm baffled by the attitude of people who move from someplace that's become too inhospitable for them. Then try and turn their new place into a carbon copy of the place they used to live.

But good news about Texas campus carry.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:26 PM

Yeah, New Hampshire and Vermont have some pretty wild things going on. Open-carry in NH, and universal healthcare via public option in VT. Crazy old world. I'd kinda like to live on the NH/VT border right about now. Except for the winters, maybe.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:17 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I have already posted to Kwicko that I got the lawyer, but could not bond her out."

Yeah, 'cause you didn't have the cash to do both. Hmmm, what's got the best sale price ...

You know, given my lowly grubbing and your awesome wealth, I find it strange that I could afford both the lawyer and the bail ... many times over, plus that plane ticket that you seem to not be able to scratch together, so poor you, you gotta' go on that HOURS long road trip ... well, I guess your awesomeness just didn't pan out.

Say hi to your mom and dad next time you see them in "your" "boathouse" basement.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF:

So, I was interested in the legal intepretation of Section 311... not the NRA's but from a hopefully less biased source, and found this:

Quote:
Legal research on the subject of militias raises the question of their authority to organize. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States provides that: "The Congress shall have the power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary [for] a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Constitution, therefore, demonstrates that militias are a creature of the state, subject to being called forth by the U.S. government "to execute the laws of the Union..." This is bolstered by the wording of the Second Amendment which holds, "A well regulated militia being necessary [for] a Free State..." and by Article 1, Section 8, Subsection (16), which reserves to the states "the appointment of officers and the authority of training the militia..."

Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 311 further stipulates that the militia consists of all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45, both citizens and those who have declared their intent to become citizens, and of female citizens who are officers of the National Guard. It also specifies that the militia consists of two classes: the organized militia and the unorganized or reserve militia. Many states have similar statutes. Those citizens who apply, or are called up for service and are accepted by a state militia, are part of an organized militia. All others eligible under the law are members of the unorganized militia, and are subject to call up by the state.

Thus, while most citizens are members of the militia

No, not really. Able-bodied men between the ages of 17 to 45 probably make up about 20% of the adult population...

Quote:
and therefore have the right to keep and bear arms to respond to a call to assemble by lawful authority, the appointment of officers, and the training of militia members are the responsibility of the state. These militias that purport to support the Constitution, yet have appointed their own officers and conduct their own training without authority from the state, are therefore in apparent violation of Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 16 of the U.S. Constitution.

So, curiously, while you can keep guns you can't actually organize your own militia.

Anyway, by your reasoning gun ownership is really only guaranteed for able-bodied men between the ages of 17 to 45, and women in the Natl Guard... and certainly not for little old ladies who might need a gun more than a strapping young man! That hardly seems fair, and certainly is not as universal as you think!

-----------------

RE CA gun ownership laws.... the laws here have never prevented me from owning a gun for self-defense, so I guess they're not all THAT horrible.

HARDWARE:

Quote:
try open carrying your gun with a loaded mag locked and one in the chamber.

Why would I want to do that? It's stupid, and doesn't add a whit to my personal safety, or to the comfort and repose of the people around me. It's like you going around and waving your dick in the air.

It seems to me that YOU just want to be all aggressive and asshole-like. Why would you want to do that?

---------------------

WULF. Back to you...

You haven't been able to provide any evidence for those "natural, god-given rights", have you?

If "rights" were so natural, we wouldn't be debating them, and they wouldn't be so changeable. They would be like gravity.... always present, always active, never in doubt.

Now, I happen to like the idea of expectations. Injustices that human beings will draw a line at, and say... Now wait a minute!. And I even like the idea that a government can aspire to guarantee certain freedoms to its citizens, and has even bothered to put those freedoms in writing. But the reality is that people are willing to give up a LOT just to be included in society, so the idea that there are natural rights kind of fails the test of history.

--------------

And those examples of a single person with a firearm changing history? Destroying a tyranny, perhaps? Got any examples???

---------------

Anyway, my point wasn't that you shouldn't own and gun, and it never was, so I hope you stop reacting *as if* I trying to.

My point is that "gun ownership" is really only good for a few things... maybe personal safety in some instances. Hunting. Recreation. Investment (rare, collectible)... I think I just ran out of ideas. But as a guarantee of your "rights", guns suck. You and your guns mean nothing if you're facing a truly determined police force or military. If you REALLY want to be free, the first thing you have to do is free your mind, know your real self-interests and recognize your true enemy. That is why the First Amendment is FIRST.... because before you pick up a gun, you had better be thinking and you had better act collectively.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:27 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"RE CA gun ownership laws.... the laws here have never prevented me from owning a gun for self-defense, so I guess they're not all THAT horrible."

Im sure the Jews said that when the Germans had them start wearing the Star of David... "its not all THAT horrible.."

A few things you might care to read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.sht
ml

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/06/dc-residents-unable-purchas
e-handguns-sole-dealer-seeks-new-office/

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-contro
l-under-the-radar/

http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/gun-exemption-in-so-call
ed-patriot-act-legislation-needed/

"If "rights" were so natural, we wouldn't be debating them, and they wouldn't be so changeable. They would be like gravity.... always present, always active, never in doubt."

No. There are certain "rights", recognized by the Constitution, as being inherent to every human being on the planet. The Constitution, and our entire form of government was designed to PREVENT those in power from infringing on them.

The problem is, there are far too many who want to see us controlled, and our rights curbed. I never understood gun-control people. Or Politically Correct people either, for that matter.

Do these types WANT to be defenseless? Do they WANT to not be able to speak out? Or is it that they only want OTHER groups to be that way?

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

*As a side note, this is what happens when people place final, and highest, authority is the hands of men (government). One of the reasons that the FF stated that the final word was from our "Creator".

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No. There are certain "rights", recognized by the Constitution, as being inherent to every human being on the planet. The Constitution, and our entire form of government was designed to PREVENT those in power from infringing on them.

This is a philosophical argument, not a political one. It has never been in doubt that the Constitution enumerates certain rights. But apparently those rights were NOT so obvious from the very start, otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have needed so many amendments! Indeed, there are still some rights MISSING from the Constitution. (I'll let you figure those out for yourself.)

BTW- How do you feel about the rights of suspected terrorists and illegal immigrants? If you believe that they are people, that they have god-given rights, and that the Constitution recognizes those rights...?

The fact that the FF had to compromise over the rights of slaves- humans who supposedly had "inalienable" rights which the FF stripped away- should tell you that while the idea of natural/ god-given/ inalienable rights, while exalted, is really a human construct.

Quote:
The problem is, there are far too many who want to see us controlled, and our rights curbed. I never understood gun-control people. Or Politically Correct people either, for that matter.

The rights granted in the Constitution do not guarantee absolute freedom. If you think that, then it's time to recalibrate your thinking.

Quote:
Do these types WANT to be defenseless? Do they WANT to not be able to speak out? Or is it that they only want OTHER groups to be that way?

Wulf, GUNS are not your guarantee to speak out. Net neutrality is. A free press is. Decentralized media is. You gonna shoot the TV because the MSM is 24/7 commercials interspersed with idiocy? There are some things that guns simply cannot guarantee.

Also, you need to realize that "freedom" doesn't mean just freedom FOR YOU. It means freedom for EVERYBODY, whether you agree with those others or not. In your scheme of what you think freedoms should be, you have to be able to grant that same level of freedom to everybody, otherwise it's not freedom, it's just your privileges.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

RE CA gun ownership laws.... the laws here have never prevented me from owning a gun for self-defense, so I guess they're not all THAT horrible.

HARDWARE:
Quote:
try open carrying your gun with a loaded mag locked and one in the chamber.
Why would I want to do that? It's stupid, and doesn't add a whit to my personal safety, or to the comfort and repose of the people around me. It's like you going around and waving your dick in the air.

It seems to me that YOU just want to be all aggressive and asshole-like. Why would you want to do that?

---------------------

My point is that "gun ownership" is really only good for a few things... maybe personal safety in some instances. Hunting. Recreation. Investment (rare, collectible)... I think I just ran out of ideas. But as a guarantee of your "rights", guns suck. You and your guns mean nothing if you're facing a truly determined police force or military. If you REALLY want to be free, the first thing you have to do is free your mind, know your real self-interests and recognize your true enemy. That is why the First Amendment is FIRST.... because before you pick up a gun, you had better be thinking and you had better act collectively.

Ah yes. I can always tell when a leftist has no basis for argument. They roll out the ad hominem attack.

YOU stated that your gun rights were not preventing you from owning a gun for self defense. The logical fallacy there is that your gun for self defense can only work in that capacity at your home or at the range. You can't easily defend yourself in public because you live in a state that has no affirmed right to keep and bear arms in its state constitution. You poor, deluded fool.

In fact, the courts have ruled that open carry with a unloaded weapon is legal. Commiefornia police departments disagree and harass and arrest people legally open carrying. So, you'd have to open carry an unloaded weapon, and when confronted by a mugger, draw your weapon, load it and then defend yourself. Sure, keep telling yourself you are free. Seems like the criminals are enjoying more freedom than you mere serfs are allowed.

Regarding open carry being stupid; It is not stupid. It's just another tool. I carry a multitool, flashlight, pocket knife and a cell phone. My handgun is just another tool. I suppose you think the flashlight and multitool are equally as penis waving as the handgun? And I believe that police find handguns useful for self-defense, just judging by the proliferation of all kinds of handguns employed by the law enforcement community. If the people around me are uncomfortable in the presence of a weapon, that is not any of my business or concern. They are free to leave. I'm not forcing them to be around me.

Regarding your misplaced assertions about my aggression; When I carry I cannot afford to have a temper. If something were to occur I would need to demonstrate that I did everything a reasonable person would do to deescalate and defuse a potentially dangerous situation. If it can be shown to a jury that I contributed to the conflict then I am likely to face incarceration and becoming a prohibited person with regard to ownership of firearms.

Regarding your linking of firearms carry to penises; If this link were even remotely true then nobody would ever buy a handgun with a 2 inch barrel.

Guns guaranteeing rights; You are obviously ignorant of the Battle of Athens. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
I believe a short perusal of the article linked will demonstrate that guns DO, in fact, protect rights. When they are backed up by a few men with some guts.

In general I find your comments indicate you are a person intimidated by weapons, or possibly fearing the possession of weapons by person you do not know and trust. Additionally, you appear ignorant of the true "gun culture" of the people who appreciate firearms and their uses. Perhaps you are a victim of propaganda. I would hope that an adult who is presumed competent would educate themselves from a variety of sources before making such ludicrous statements as you have made toward me.

So, do you have any other ridiculous premises you'd like me to debunk?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yeah, New Hampshire and Vermont have some pretty wild things going on. Open-carry in NH, and universal healthcare via public option in VT. Crazy old world. I'd kinda like to live on the NH/VT border right about now. Except for the winters, maybe.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Winters are not nearly as bad as youd think....i love winter out here...im on the notch in ct, maybe 35 minutes from both borders....winter round here is one hell of a sight...i dont know how people live without real seasons...fall is the best....the cooks still smoke in resturants in nh...crazy sight to see a long ashed cigarette hanging over your eggs..lol, ya know

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I have already posted to Kwicko that I got the lawyer, but could not bond her out."

Yeah, 'cause you didn't have the cash to do both. Hmmm, what's got the best sale price ...

You know, given my lowly grubbing and your awesome wealth, I find it strange that I could afford both the lawyer and the bail ... many times over, plus that plane ticket that you seem to not be able to scratch together, so poor you, you gotta' go on that HOURS long road trip ... well, I guess your awesomeness just didn't pan out.

Say hi to your mom and dad next time you see them in "your" "boathouse" basement.[/QUOTe

You want me to fly to niantic from bradley international...are you stupid, it is not even possible, secondly it does take an hour to drive there an hour to wait, an hour to visit, and an hour to get back...my dad is dead, but i will say hi to mom next time i see her...loan me the 18,000 for bail....cause if i did both id be hurting...i do have child support, alimony, mortgage, etc....and as much as i love marilyn...i cant bring my checking account that low...we are not married. And most dear friends wouldnt even pay the 10000 for the attorney...let alone all the commisary money for food and tv and other shit, so you can belittle my efforts all you want...marilyn is more than greatfull. And that is what matters...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sig,

Again.

You have the right to NOT own a gun.

I have the right to own a pistol, with a 30+ magazine, or .50 cal rifle, or a fully automatic rifle chambered in 556 or 308.

I also have the right to carry it with me whereever I go.

Why do you think the "red" states are so safe?

Even the gangbanger monkees KNOW not to fuck with people HERE.

Who wants to go full Bosnia for a T.V.? Just go to NY, MD, CA, etc if you want an easy win.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:42 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6828

Well, instead of just flat out making handguns illegal, the slaves have decided on a different course.

Make guns unable to funtion at all!

You stupid, STUPID fucking slaves.

I talk with my militia friends and it comes to this..

"If they are so stupid... so ready to be slaves, ready to bow down to any "person" in charge... then when we have to take back their areas...

they deserve what they get."

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:51 AM

Just an idea about some historical context. Wasn't the constitution drafted at a time when there were no or few standing armies, when people, or princes, or kings, actually raised their own militias, that relied on their own weaponry? The concurrent laws in Britain had prevented protestants from carrying arms, but allowed catholics, which meant that catholics could organise militias/armies against the protestants but not the other way around. Or perhaps it was the other way around. There were no trained armies, or policeforces either, and life wasn't some libertarian paradise either before anyone starts on about what a good idea that was. Might equalled right back then as well, and armed conflict was probably much more prevalent in Europe than in modern times.

So wasn't that the spirit in which the constitution was drafted. In a time so different, that people may have been a different species. I'm pretty sure the drafters didn't envisage the kind of weaponry around today, and the strength and sophistication of modern military forces.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sig,

Again.

You have the right to NOT own a gun.

I have the right to own a pistol, with a 30+ magazine, or .50 cal rifle, or a fully automatic rifle chambered in 556 or 308.

Not really. "Fully" automatic? You have the "right", as long as you have the right paperwork, and pay the right bribes - er, I mean "fees" - and get the right permit.

Quote:

I also have the right to carry it with me whereever I go.

So what are you crying about, then?

Quote:

Why do you think the "red" states are so safe?

According to conservatives, they aren't. They're being massively over-run with drug cartels and the borders are a war zone. Unless you don't consider Texas and Arizona "red" states...

Quote:

Even the gangbanger monkees KNOW not to fuck with people HERE.

Not sure if you're just being your usual racist asshole self, or if you know something about Peter, Davey, Mickey, and Mike that the rest of us don't. Were The Monkees *really* in a gang?

Quote:

Who wants to go full Bosnia for a T.V.? Just go to NY, MD, CA, etc if you want an easy win.

Apparently, you do. Wait, let me rephrase that - YOU want to go "full Bosnia" for ANY reason; you relish the very idea of finally getting your chance to go "full Bosnia" one day.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6828

Well, instead of just flat out making handguns illegal, the slaves have decided on a different course.

Make guns unable to funtion at all!

How exactly does this "make guns unable to function at all"? Be specific, show your work, provide examples.

Quote:

You stupid, STUPID fucking slaves.

I talk with my militia friends and it comes to this..

"If they are so stupid... so ready to be slaves, ready to bow down to any "person" in charge... then when we have to take back their areas...

they deserve what they get."

Sounds like more of your usual masturbatory fantasies, wherein you get to be the conquering hero, and figure you'll just take your pay in rape and plunder.

"When we have to take back their areas... they DESERVE WHAT THEY GET." Nice.

And why do your "militia friends" put the word "person" in quotation marks when speaking of the President?

So, Wulfie, tell us all: What have YOU done that frees you utterly from being a "stupid, STUPID fucking slave"? Did you quit your job? Stop cashing your paychecks so you don't have to rely on that icky fake fiat money? Move off the grid? Disappear from civilization?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 2:38 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Just an idea about some historical context. Wasn't the constitution drafted at a time when there were no or few standing armies, when people, or princes, or kings, actually raised their own militias, that relied on their own weaponry? The concurrent laws in Britain had prevented protestants from carrying arms, but allowed catholics, which meant that catholics could organise militias/armies against the protestants but not the other way around. Or perhaps it was the other way around. There were no trained armies, or policeforces either, and life wasn't some libertarian paradise either before anyone starts on about what a good idea that was. Might equalled right back then as well, and armed conflict was probably much more prevalent in Europe than in modern times.

So wasn't that the spirit in which the constitution was drafted. In a time so different, that people may have been a different species. I'm pretty sure the drafters didn't envisage the kind of weaponry around today, and the strength and sophistication of modern military forces.

A little historical correction-- There were standing national armies-- the British had one, that's who the Redcoats were. And in those days local noblemen, in England at least, had to be able to raise a local regiment at the order of the King. So the locals were organized and trained, somewhat. The King also hired mercenaries-- that's who the Hessians were, German mercenaries. None of these folks were particularly rapid response forces. In America, militias were formed, much like the Minutemen, less formally organized groups able to respond quickly to the threat of an Indian, or French, or British attack.
And as to the weaponry the Fathers had in mind, the long rifle of the colonists was a better weapon than the British Army musket. It had longer range and better accuracy, that's why the Minutemen could fight as individual snipers hiding behind trees, rocks and bridges, against the massed formations of the Redcoats with their short range smoothbores.

The Kentucky long rifle might have been the AK-47 of its time...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:25 PM

I believe that a standing armies of that era did not muchly resemble what we know of armies today, and were still a new concept, and were relatively small.

It wasn't that civilians were trained and ready, they just had to go and fight at the behest of their kind or lord, and often were very poorly armed with farm implements rather than weapons. One of the biggest complaints about soldiers from the past was how they were ill disciplined, invariable drunk (well, you would be, wouldn't you), and poorly armed. As a commoner, you were at the mercy of the squirmishes of the nobles and the religious conflicts of various countries. Owning a weapon, having the capacity to form a fighting force made a lot more sense back then, or at least no one had throught of a better way to do things. Now it would be pretty useless, I'm afraid, and really who wants to go back to a time in history where militias and armies swept through the countryside buggering the place up with their quarrels on a yearly basis.

It seems to me that most Americans who own weapons do so for personal protection or recreation and very little to do with being part of a militia or prevention of tyranny. And those who do want to be part of militias seem like very strange and scary dudes who suffer from paranoia.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

One last comment Cankersore, before I'm through with you -

"... loan me the 18,000 for bail..." doesn't fit with this "I make more money in one year then (sic) you will make in 10... ". We all know you're pathologically full of bullshit, and so stupid you can't even keep your stories straight. The sad part is, if you had to pick which one you regretted more, I bet you'd regret your meager crumb of honesty more than your ton of lies.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:55 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I believe that a standing armies of that era did not muchly resemble what we know of armies today, and were still a new concept, and were relatively small.

from various articles in Wikipedia:

Quote:

The British Army is the land warfare branch of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in the United Kingdom.
It came into being with the unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland into the
Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. The new British Army incorporated Regiments that had already
existed in England and Scotland...

Early in 1775, the British Army consisted of about 36,000 men worldwide, but wartime
recruitment steadily increased this number.

Over the course of the war, Great Britain signed treaties with various German states, which
supplied about 30,000 soldiers. Germans made up about one-third of the British troop strength
in North America. Hesse-Kassel contributed more soldiers than any other state, and German
soldiers became known as "Hessians" to the Americans. Revolutionary speakers called German
soldiers "foreign mercenaries," and they are scorned as such in the Declaration of Independence.

By 1779, the number of British and German troops stationed in North America was over 60,000,
although these were spread from Canada to Florida.

I will give you that this was a relatively new concept, but the professional British army had fought in the French and Indian War, but as to a small force, not so much. I think maybe you've got your British army mixed up with British militias-- the Redcoats were not a bunch of untrained farmers armed with pitchforks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:13 PM

Well it appears to have varied in strength from time to time, but if you read down further it says a lot about the recruitment methods and who actually 'volunteered'. It gives you a bit of an idea of the primitive nature of armies.

Quote:
At the beginning of the 18th century the standing strength of the British Army was reduced after the Treaty of Ryswick, and stood at 7,000 troops at home and 14,000 based overseas,[1] with recruits ranging from 17 to 50 years of age. The army was kept small by the government during peacetime, mainly due to the fear that the army would be unduly influenced by the Crown or used to depose the government.[2] The Bill of Rights of 1689 specifies that Parliamentary authority is needed to maintain a standing army in peacetime.

For much of the 18th century, the army was recruited in a wide variety of places, and many of its recruits were mercenaries from continental Europe, including Danes, Hessians and Hanoverians.[3] These mercenaries were hired out by other rulers on contracted terms. Other regiments were formed of volunteers such as French Huguenots. By 1709, during the War of the Spanish Succession, the British Army totalled 150,000 men, of whom 81,000 were foreign mercenaries.[3] The rest of the army consisted of natives of the British Isles, apart from the officers mainly recruited from the poorest sections of society. Each regiment was responsible for the recruitment of its own troops, and individual colonels would lead recruiting parties on tours of the towns and villages. This was emphasized by a popular play of the time called The Recruiting Officer.[4] Other powers were given by the British government to allow the forcible enlistment of vagrants and vagabonds. Some of these powers were abused by recruiting officers desperate to fill their quotas, although a legalized Royal Navy press-gang system would not be implemented yet,[4] even though normal recruiting methods failed to supply the required annual influx of troops, as the army was not a popular profession, with low pay, flogging and other barbarous disciplinary measures.[2] The army's recruiting methods and treatment of its soldiers would remain the same for the rest of the 18th century.
Press gang, British caricature of 1780

During the American Revolutionary War, a policy similar to the Navy's Press Gangs was introduced. Two acts were passed, the Recruiting Act 1778 and the Recruiting Act 1779, for the impressment of individuals. For some men this would have been for being drunk and disorderly. The chief advantages of these acts was in the number of volunteers brought in under the apprehension of impressment. To avoid impressment, some recruits incapacitated themselves by cutting off the thumb and forefinger of the right hand. Both acts were repealed in 1780.[5] The British Government also released criminals and debtors from prison on the condition they joined the army. Three entire regiments during the American Revolution were raised from this early release programme.[6] Of the Volunteer recruits, some would find they had been enticed to take the King's shilling under false pretenses and many men would find they had signed to a lifetime in the army.[5]

After the defeat of Great Britain by the American revolutionaries, the British Army fell into dereliction (it should be noted that the army in 1775 was in a poor state anyway), morale and discipline were low, and troops levels fell.[7] The Army was neglected as never before and its total strength in 1793 stood at 40,000 men.[8]

The Redcoats were a pack of drunken vagrants. However, i don't really mean to discuss the ins and outs of military history, but to demonstrate that the world was a very different place when around the time of the drafting of the second amendment. And the reasons for it are obsolete today.

Quote:
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689 which restricted the right of the Federal government to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights 1689 restricted the right of the monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which restricted Protestants rights to have arms whilst at the same time allowing Catholics to keep theirs. The English Bill of Rights firmly established that the right to bear arms was a right within the powers of Parliament to regulate and did not belong to the monarch. Although it was never repealed, those parts of the Bill that refer to the ban on the keeping of standing armies and the right to bear arms, are now considered obsolete.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF

Quote:
Sig,

Again. You have the right to NOT own a gun.
I have the right to own a pistol, with a 30+ magazine, or .50 cal rifle, or a fully automatic rifle chambered in 556 or 308.
I also have the right to carry it with me whereever I go.
Why do you think the "red" states are so safe?
Even the gangbanger monkees KNOW not to fuck with people HERE.

I have already addressed your right to a gun. Several times, in fact. Meanwhile, you have not addressed any of my last post.

We can't have a discussion unless you are willing to answer arguments posited by your opponents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:34 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

It seems to me that most Americans who own weapons do so for personal protection or recreation and very little to do with being part of a militia or prevention of tyranny. And those who do want to be part of militias seem like very strange and scary dudes who suffer from paranoia.

I agree with you just about 100 % about most of these modern day dudes.
As to history, I will , reluctantly, admit that you might know more about the historical British army than I do.

And while researching the English Brown Bess musket vs. the Virginia long rifle , I came across this tidbit on Wikipedia:

Quote:

Most male citizens of the American Colonies were required by law to own arms and ammunition
for militia duty.

With I could attribute that statement to a historical document, but it does have, to me, a ring of truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:55 PM

I would imagine that it was true, given the kind of environment they lived in and the likelihood of running into someone who hated their guts and wanted them dead, probably a good idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 27, 2011 1:38 AM