|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
 Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?  [Re: Xlea321]
#872297 - 09/09/02 10:39 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, according to the founding fathers, the constitution, the supreme court, the justice department, the current and most past administrations, and the majority of constitutional experts it does. Just because a few idiots and several anti gun groups say it doesn't, does not make it so no matter how hard you might wish it to be.
Develop your learning and comprehension skills and you'll see it is so. Perhaps it would also be in your best interest to read the definition of the word "people."
Quite frankly while I have enjoyed seeing you make an ass of yourself, I tire of seeing myself and others in this post show you up fot the ignorant buffoonish moron that you appear to be. I'm sure you have at least some redeeming value but it seems to escape me.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#872378 - 09/09/02 11:18 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, according to the second amendment itself it doesn't. That talks specifically about militias. No matter how many lunatic fundamentalist gun sites you find that say it doesn't. The words don't lie.
We've been through all this tho. You'll believe what you want to believe. The truth doesn't matter to you. You've proven that beyond doubt. Indeed, that's the only thing you have proven.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
#873224 - 09/09/02 07:05 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think the second amendment justifies it. If the government ever gets to oppressive what side do you think the pigs will be on. Yep you guessed it. big brothers. if we were eventually going to overthrow the government we would need to go throught the pigs. Just look at the irrational marijuana laws. These are unconstitutional and unjust yet the police are "just enforcing the law". I think the war on drugs constitutionaly gives us the right to shoot pigs if they are enforcing the war on drugs.
--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.
There is such emotion in the distortion.
|
dee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: 1stimer]
#873270 - 09/09/02 07:32 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I think the war on drugs constitutionaly gives us the right to shoot pigs if they are enforcing the war on drugs.
wow 6 pages later and someone finally gave me an answer worth reading 
|
 mr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: dee_N_ae]
#880286 - 09/12/02 09:49 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Hey; I gave you an answer worth reading. I simply encapsulated my assesment in the guise of under what condition that armed resistance might be used.
|
dee_N_ae
\/\/¡†¢h |-|øµ§³ ¢å†
Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 2,473
Loc: The Shadow of Neptune
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: mr freedom]
#880505 - 09/12/02 11:47 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i was exaggerating a bit, i just meant that 1stimer gave what i thought was the best answer, short and to the point. i must have skipped over your post in my attempt to find and end to the bickering about sources and facts and whatnot. but i went back and read it; you make a lot of good points there and have obviously done more research than i ever will, thanks for your insights. i'm going to go buy a gun soon 
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
#881370 - 09/13/02 01:10 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Pinksharkmark wrote:
"The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms"
Alex123 wrote:
"Actually it doesn't. That's what the first 3 pages of this thread addressed."
Yes, Alex it was addressed, quotes were provided from the founding fathers supporting the argument that the constitution does in fact guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You have provided no similar arguments from the people who founded this country which would support your position. We're still waiting...
Edited by Evolving (09/13/02 01:15 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: ]
#881506 - 09/13/02 07:13 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
quotes were provided from the founding fathers
Sorry, but as i said, I have no doubt some of the founding fathers were for arming everyone. That just isn't what the second amendment says. You can dig me up as many pro-gun qoutes from the founding fathers as you want. The only one that matters is the one they drafted. That refers to arming militias.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
#881815 - 09/13/02 09:49 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I know I said I'd not respond to any more of your foolishness, sadly here I am again.
Are you really so incredibly numb as to be unable to acknowledge the fact that the definition of militia at the time was a force of every able bodied man?
Just because the definition has evolved over the years doesn't change that at all. The definition of gay has changed over the years as well. Does that mean that the original definition no longer applies?
Let's use your "logic" on the first ammendment shall we?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Did the press include radio and television at that time? Should they not be protected just because the definition of press has changed?
But sadly, I expect there is no arguement that would persuade you as you appear to have been spoon-fed the liberal line. I suspect that somehow, should you be able to travel back in time you would get into an arguement with those who signed the Bill Of Rights as to what it really means.
Limiting yourself to the period before 1800, can you find ANY quotes or proof to back up your position? I chose that year because the country was still new and should you find any quotes they would actually be relevant.
Hopefully you are sterile. Whatever genes led you to your present state would be better off fading away.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#881861 - 09/13/02 10:22 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I know I said I'd not respond to any more of your foolishness, sadly here I am again.
If only you'd kept your word
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#881868 - 09/13/02 10:25 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Limiting yourself to the period before 1800, can you find ANY quotes or proof to back up your position?
Yeah, here's one that the supreme court considers only applies to militias, not to individuals. Read it carefully.
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.
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#881880 - 09/13/02 10:34 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
THE MYTH OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
What does the Second Amendment Mean?
How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.
The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment ? the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" ? a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 ? hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
The Second Amendment Today
In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.
Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia ? the National Guard ? has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice ? in 1965 and 1990 ? the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove) . In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ?fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.. .[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see ? and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ?Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precendents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (09/13/02 10:37 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
#881885 - 09/13/02 10:36 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
So you can write anything you want and not provide the source?
Just what I expected.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#881887 - 09/13/02 10:38 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
When you have no argument, just say "Can i have a link"
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#881891 - 09/13/02 10:40 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
In 1998, guns were used to murder 4 people in New Zealand, 19 in Japan, 54 in England and Wales, 57 in Australia, 151 in Canada, 373 in Germany and 11,798 in the United States.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
#881897 - 09/13/02 10:43 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That's a good post (and I agree with everything in it) but I too would like to know the source (to congratulate the author).
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
#882520 - 09/13/02 03:59 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Alex, believe it or not.... I'm laughing with you, not at you.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#882894 - 09/13/02 07:00 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Alex, believe it or not.... I'm laughing with you, not at you.
I believe it luvdem.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
#884567 - 09/15/02 10:54 PM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
When you have no argument, just say "Can i have a link"
No Numbnuts, when I want to go read your source for myself, to see where it's from, to judge the info in context for myself, to perhaps learn something new.... that's when I ask for the source.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#884932 - 09/16/02 04:59 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
when I want to go read your source for myself
To be honest I get most of my information from books rather than internet pages.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
SoopaX
1 2 3 all )
Anonymous
MagicalMystery
Ellis Dee
Senor_Doobie
mm.