Home | Community | Message Board


Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibledee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
    #854390 - 08/31/02 05:56 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

in the coming year do you think it would be more and more likely that we could use the second amendment to jusity shooting police officers or soldiers?
from the constitution:
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.

could that not be interpereted to mean that we are constitutionally obligated to bear arms against our government when it becomes a tyrannical dictatorship that is taking away our percieved freedoms?


Edited by dee_N_ae (08/31/02 05:58 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineUnity333
addict
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/26/01
Posts: 685
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #854441 - 08/31/02 06:59 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I do not like guns, nor usless prevoceted would I ever shoot anyone, but hurt me or mine, and I have the right even if you are the law to shot back....
I like haveing this right.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #854532 - 08/31/02 08:42 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

The second amendment is one of the most badly phrased sentences in history. I think it's generally thought that it meant only state authorities like the army and police should be allowed to own guns.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCaptain Jack
i [heart] you

Registered: 01/24/00
Posts: 4,113
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #854545 - 08/31/02 08:50 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

the answer is:

no, moron.


--------------------
-
Captain Jack has been hailed as a brilliant scholar, discredited as a brilliant fraud, and mistaken for a much taller man on several occasions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #854719 - 08/31/02 11:33 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Dope


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #854725 - 08/31/02 11:38 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In reply to:

The second amendment is one of the most badly phrased sentences in history. I think it's generally thought that it meant only state authorities like the army and police should be allowed to own guns.



It's phrased just fine and it's a individual right, not a police and army right. Or do you not understand what the word "people" means? When it was written the word militia meant a peoples army, a citizens army. If you take a few minutes and read some of the Federalist papers written at the time, written by the creators of the bill of rights, it will soon be clear to even the biggest fool that the right is for the people, to defend against a tyranical goverment and to ensure all the rest of our rights.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #855214 - 08/31/02 04:57 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In reply to:

The second amendment is one of the most badly phrased sentences in history. I think it's generally thought that it meant only state authorities like the army and police should be allowed to own guns.




"Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe
the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to
prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens
of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton,
The Federalist Papers at 184-188


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Captain Jack]
    #855431 - 08/31/02 07:45 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

heh
i'm not saying i want to kill cops or anything
this was just something a friend's dad was ranting about and i wanted to see what ya'll thought, no need to go around calling names. i generally despise NRA types, but the second amendment is what it is and i'm glad we have it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEightball
whore consumer
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/21/01
Posts: 3,013
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #855445 - 08/31/02 07:55 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

it won't be justified in any court because its too radical for todays censored citizens who would rather have the gov tell them what to do and follow obiediently than actually question authority and face reprocussions of action versus inaction.


--------------------
If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on.you'll see devils tearing your life away.
But...if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels
Freeing you from the earth.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery Arcade Champion: Duck Hunt, Enemy Enforcer

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 13,087
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 7 hours, 54 minutes
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #855502 - 08/31/02 08:22 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I was surprised at your opinion because from your handle I thought you were naming yourself after the handgun. Desert Eagle in .50 ae

From the founders writings it is clear that they intended for the 2nd to be an individial freedom. I do agree however it is one of the most poorly worded sentences in American History.


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #855719 - 08/31/02 10:18 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

MYTH #1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own and carry a gun.

FACT: The gun lobby focuses on the second half of the Second Amendment when they make this argument. In doing so it misinterprets the meaning of the amendment. The Second Amendment is designed to give the states the right to form and maintain a"well regulated militia" to provide for the security of the state and as supplement to the police. It and is not meant to ensure an individual right to bear arms. The amendment means what it says - in its entirety.

The National Guard, created in 1903, is the modern equivalent of an organized state militia. The members of the National Guard are provided with arms when called into duty and are not required to privately own firearms for service. This view that the Second Amendment is a group rather than an individual right has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts. In fact, no law restricting the ownership of private arms has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless it has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Supreme Court has stated that today's militia is the National Guard.

That decision by the Supreme Court is the law of the land.

We challenge those who claim that the Federal government does not have the right to restrict the private ownership of firearms to file a lawsuit against the Federal government, on Second Amendment basis, to overthrow the Brady Bill and/or the ban on assault guns.

MYTH #2: The Founding Fathers of this nation intended to give every individual the right to own firearms.

FACT: The constitution was drafted in 1787 by delegates from the former colonies appointed for the purpose. There was much discussion, comments, and disagreements about all parts of the constitution, including the second amendment. Like any political document , drafting the constitution required compromises between the different views of those who were given the task of drafting the document. It had to be ratified by the states before going into effect.

The states clearly wanted to maintain their militias. They feared armed rebellions by organizations within their state. This had already happened in Massachusetts just one year before the convention convened. In 1786, the "Shays" rebellion was put down by the state militia. Keeping strong, well regulated state militias was of great interest to many delegates.

Recent research by noted historians support the argument that the states which permitted slavery greatly feared an armed rebellion by slaves and wanted to be prepared to deal with it. It must be kept in mind when reading high-toned pronouncements by some leaders of the time that many of the most vocal represented "slave" states and were themselves owners of slaves. Their state governments and their livelihood depended on maintaining the institution of slavery. Those who quote Thomas Jefferson should be aware that he was from a "slave" state, Virginia, owned slaves, and did not attend the constitution convention.


Though certain individuals among our Founding Fathers may have believed in an individual right to the ownership of arms, the Second Amendment did not reflect this. Once again, although certain individuals among the writers of the constitution may have believed in an individual right to own and bear arms, the resulting document of the group as a whole did not reflect this view of firearm ownership.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #856017 - 09/01/02 02:06 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You seem as if you should know enough to post the source for cut and pastes, apparently you don't.

If I had to guess I'd say you cut that from Handgun Controls website.

Try these:
Legal Issues

This section deals with just a few of the major legal issues and landmark court cases in regard to the Second Amendment.

According to the Supreme Court in Verdugo-Urquidez, "the people" does not denote the National Guard, or States.
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.
Text from U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, Sup. Ct. case No. 88-1353 (1990).

Perpich v. Dept. of Defense established that the National Guard is not a Militia. It is ultimately under federal control.
Article one's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a national emergency.
U.S. Supreme Court, Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) on establishing the National Guard under federal contorl.

In Dred Scott v Sanford, one of the reasons the Supreme Court denied slaves rights was because it allow them to be armed, all well as enjoy other basic human rights we all share today.
"Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding."
U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v Sanford 1857

Federal oversight of firearms is not called for in the constitution, especially if that right is granted to the people in the constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution.
Here the court deals with "previous restraint" of a constitutional right, as opposed to punishing law breakers.
'The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege.'
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931). Us Supreme Court

States can not infringe upon second amendment rights.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Section 1, Amendment XlV, United States Constitution

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
U.S. Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

The Militia described in the second amendment was not meant to be a federally controlled National Guard.
'The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) US Supreme Court

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Miller (1939)

'Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints.
The Militia Act of 1792, which was passed one year after the 2nd Amendment and declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were members of the militia.

And here's the source:
http://www.gunfacts.org/

Here's a few more:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms?disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Alexander Hamilton

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams (1780)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, 3 Eliot, Debates at 425-426.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense."
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms ?To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . "
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"The said Constitution be never construed ?to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

'To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [note: like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.'
Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, ed. Walter Hartwell Bennett

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No.28

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves?...Congress has no power to disarm the militia....Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette February 20, 1788

"The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. .... all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."
Richard Henry Lee

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Coxe in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . .(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46

"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."
James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

And here's once each from Walter Mondale and the left wings own Malcom X:
"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them."
Walter Mondale, Former Vice President, (D) and U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 4/20/94

... I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shogun or a rifle."
Malcolm X, April 3. 1964. *Malcolm X Speaks* ((New York: Merit Publishers, 1965)

Try and find many respected constitutional scholars who feel the second ammendment isn't an individual right, you may find a few. The majority who can think for themselves and who don't blindly believe what an anti gun group spouts will tell you it is indeed an individual right.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #856026 - 09/01/02 02:20 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)






--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #856093 - 09/01/02 03:37 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

If I had to guess I'd say you cut that from Handgun Controls website.

er...well done. You'll go far....and let me guess...you're stuff came from a pro-gun site?

Try telling all that to some of the parents of kids slaughtered at Columbine. In England they introduced stricter gun controls after a similar massacre of little kids at Dunblane - to date (6 years later) there have been no similar cases. While in America a new massacre of children happens regularly. Coincidence?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Edited by Alex123 (09/01/02 04:11 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #856121 - 09/01/02 04:11 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I disagree with the word "regularly"... but if you do a little checking you'll find the violent crime rate and the rate of burgleries and robberies has shot way up in England since the change in gun laws. The same has happened in Austrailia.

You can't blame murders on guns. More people are killed with bare hands than are shot. More crimes are stopped by armed citizens than by cops.

The pure and simple facts of the matter show that we are guaranteed the right to have guns. Only a constitutional change will prevent us from doing so. The majority of us in the US are safer as a result. Cops come after the crime has been comitted.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #856122 - 09/01/02 04:19 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I disagree with the word "regularly"...

Well how often do you think it's ok to have little kids blown apart by automatic weapons? Is it ok if it only happens twice a year?

You can't blame murders on guns.

Sorry man, but I don't want every yahoo walking round on the street packin heat. I don't have that much faith in drunken assholes with automatic weapons. In England you can walk around knowing that the muggers and the burglars are unarmed, the most they'll be packing is a knife. A mugger with a knife i can handle. A mugger with a gun has a very good chance of killing me. I'd rather none of them had guns.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #856123 - 09/01/02 04:19 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In reply to:

you're stuff came from a pro-gun site?



Of course... but read the quotes and court decisions. They came from the founders of this country and from the Supreme Court. Who better than the founders would know what they meant by the words of the 2nd ammendment. All the anti gun nuts in the world can not change the fact that the ammendment is for the people, not the government.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #856124 - 09/01/02 04:21 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Like the myth 2 part i posted above says - there's no doubt some of the founding fathers agreed with arming civilians, that's just not what the second amendment says. That says militia. A private citizen isn't a militia.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #856126 - 09/01/02 04:25 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In reply to:

Well how often do you think it's ok to have little kids blown apart by automatic weapons? Is it ok if it only happens twice a year?



I don't think even once is OK. However that doesn't change the fact that evn with out guns people can kill many. Look at Oklahoma City, the disco in NYC where a nut set the place on fire with gasoline, killing many, look at suicide bombers. If people want to kill, they will. Taking guns away from the law abiding will not stop them.

Tell a woman trying to defend herself against a larger mugger with a knife she doesn't need and shouldn't want a gun to defend herself. Tell even a guy who is confronted by a group of gang members who want to beat the crap out of him that he doesn't need a gun. I'm glad that you can defend yourself but what of those who can't?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,011
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #856128 - 09/01/02 04:27 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Read my list of quotes to find out what the definition of militia was at the time...
Every able bodied man.

Just because the definition of militia has changed over the years doesn't matter. The founders repeatedly said it was a right of the people. Or don't facts matter to you?

So did the court...
'The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) US Supreme Court

But don't let facts stand in your way.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Edited by luvdemshrooms (09/01/02 04:31 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 2nd amendment, does it provide a personal right? Regulation of that right? Discussion of law
( 1 2 all )
johnm214 2,353 25 04/11/08 10:45 AM
by johnm214
* for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 5,916 58 01/23/04 06:34 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* What does the 2nd Amendment mean? SoopaX 1,399 16 12/11/04 05:09 PM
by SoopaX
* Blind allegiance to the 2nd Amendment by Bush
( 1 2 all )
1stimer 2,054 20 09/09/04 09:35 PM
by unbeliever
* 2nd Amendment Quote MagicalMystery 287 0 10/19/05 04:28 PM
by MagicalMystery
* Obama on the 2nd Amendment zappaisgod 547 13 10/30/08 11:27 PM
by gluke bastid
* The 2nd Amendment Anonymous 434 2 08/03/03 12:31 AM
by Anonymous
* what is the militia?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 1,779 32 11/13/04 12:03 AM
by retread

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
7,796 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.143 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.