If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 502
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



502 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 09:57:31 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: This thread needs more gun porn.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.


Oh man, I bet you could kill a few bystanders with that load. Lol amirite?
 
2012-12-03 09:58:27 AM  

ghare: sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.


But.... what if his troll account is against it?
 
2012-12-03 09:58:36 AM  

jake_lex: Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"


And when he leaves office four years from now without taking their guns, it will only be because of their vigilance and the sacrifice of the NRA!
 
2012-12-03 09:59:20 AM  

keylock71: That's nice... *pats American Thinker on the head*


Wipe your hand. You wouldn't want any of that derp sticking to you.
 
2012-12-03 09:59:29 AM  

vygramul: And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.


And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.
 
2012-12-03 09:59:40 AM  

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.
 
2012-12-03 10:00:10 AM  

vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.


There still is:

i46.tinypic.com

My 3" bore mortar. I can place a 1 lb tin can half-full of cement 300 yards down range with a roughly 400 grain powder charge. Traditionally, mortars like that used hollow balls filled with powder with a fuse timed to "air burst" over the target, but that's a destructive device under federal law, so I just use solid, non-assploding shot: The tin cans "shuttlecock", flying nose first, similar to a giant shotgun slug If I used similar weight round balls, I could probably get a bit more range, because they would be a tad more aerodynamic. Some people mold zinc balls for their mortars, and I could probably get 400 yards easy with a properly shaped, finned projectile, but in both cases that's a lot of work for a single-use projectile. Filling used tin cans with mortar mix is a whole lot quicker and cheaper.
 
2012-12-03 10:01:07 AM  

ghare: For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.


things that ghare thinks are probably a good idea (part one of many):

anime
hitler
milli vanilli
gerrymandering
beer before liquor
male genital piercings
declaring all potential opponents incompetent to avoid having to consider an opposing viewpoint
changing lanes without using a blinker
hipster superfruit
licking hotel nightstands
torture
aids
hiatler again
animatronic singing vermin
dubya
lederhosen
deathpolka
swap.avi
youtube comments
 
2012-12-03 10:03:42 AM  

dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]

justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.


'Morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence' suggests there are cases when that particular behavior, belief or occurrence is not acceptable, which would be a limitation. Otherwise, why would a justification be necessary to begin with?
 
2012-12-03 10:03:47 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: This thread needs more gun porn.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.

Oh man, I bet you could kill a few bystanders with that load. Lol amirite?


Don't quote me on that ".45 ACP" thingee. Both those rounds in that pic are .45 Colt Long and Taurus' website says it fires .45.
 
2012-12-03 10:04:07 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: This thread needs more gun porn.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.

Oh man, I bet you could kill a few bystanders with that load. Lol amirite?


Actually, probably not. It's not a good self-defense load at all - the penetration is crap. It's one of those things impractical things that nevertheless appeal to people. Of course, as with any load, it could kill someone, and, as a result of it being multiple projectiles, could kill multiple people with any given shot. It might even be uniquely more likely to kill bystanders than your target by dint of it possibly hitting more bystanders than targets.
 
2012-12-03 10:04:24 AM  

whistleridge: sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.


People called Romanes, they go the house?

Fluorescent Testicle: Considering that you don't realise that Sprawl is an overly-sarcastic libby libpants


Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant
 
2012-12-03 10:05:15 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: vygramul: And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.

And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.


Then we are in agreement.

/Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment
 
2012-12-03 10:05:33 AM  

dittybopper: i46.tinypic.com

My 3" bore mortar. I can place a 1 lb tin can half-full of cement 300 yards down range with a roughly 400 grain powder charge. Traditionally, mortars like that used hollow balls filled with powder with a fuse timed to "air burst" over the target, but that's a destructive device under federal law, so I just use solid, non-assploding shot: The tin cans "shuttlecock", flying nose first, similar to a giant shotgun slug If I used similar weight round balls, I could probably get a bit more range, because they would be a tad more aerodynamic. Some people mold zinc balls for their mortars, and I could probably get 400 yards easy with a properly shaped, finned projectile, but in both cases that's a lot of work for a single-use projectile. Filling used tin cans with mortar mix is a whole lot quicker and cheaper.


Yeah, that's farking awesome, right there...
 
2012-12-03 10:05:58 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race. On the other hand, American Potato doesn't recognise the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment (the one that says that brown and gay people are human beings), so I just want to say that their hypocritical cherry-picking asses can bite me.

The way these farknuggets wildly masturbate to some parts of the Constitution and completely ignore the rest annoys me even more than the birther bullshiat. The Constitution is not the bloody Bible, it just doesn't work that way.


And in reality, the Bible doesn't work that way, either.
 
2012-12-03 10:06:02 AM  

sprawl15: aids
hiatler again


LOL, filterowned.
 
2012-12-03 10:06:49 AM  
Well that football player was probably raised listening to music that direspects women by calling them biatches and hoes. If it wasn't a gun he probably would have stabbed her, or bludgeoned her or choked her with his own hands.

Maybe we should restrict the content of music and whatnot.
 
2012-12-03 10:07:17 AM  

sprawl15: Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant


Ditto (outside of America, I consider myself to be a centre-right moderate), but by modern American standards, we're still libs.

Of course, by modern American standards, Mussolini was a lib...
 
2012-12-03 10:07:33 AM  
Those nutjobs on the Right just can't except the fact that OBAMA IS NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS so they are making up BS story that the reason he's doing nothing on gun control is because of stupid shows that run on the Discovery channel.

What a sad sad bunch of people, you have my sympathy.
 
2012-12-03 10:08:29 AM  

dittybopper: vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.

There still is:

[i46.tinypic.com image 640x480]

My 3" bore mortar. I can place a 1 lb tin can half-full of cement 300 yards down range with a roughly 400 grain powder charge. Traditionally, mortars like that used hollow balls filled with powder with a fuse timed to "air burst" over the target, but that's a destructive device under federal law, so I just use solid, non-assploding shot: The tin cans "shuttlecock", flying nose first, similar to a giant shotgun slug If I used similar weight round balls, I could probably get a bit more range, because they would be a tad more aerodynamic. Some people mold zinc balls for their mortars, and I could probably get 400 yards easy with a properly shaped, finned projectile, but in both cases that's a lot of work for a single-use projectile. Filling used tin cans with mortar mix is a whole lot quicker and cheaper.


I had an Antiquities & Collectibles federal firearms license for a while, and they distribute a list of what qualifies. The license was cheap, like $30 for 3 years. I bought it because I wanted to get a Thompson, a new full-auto weapon requiring a $2000/yr license. Anyway, the list of qualifying weapons included things like 75mm pack howitzers, 160mm air-air rockets, and so on.
 
2012-12-03 10:08:56 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you believe any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind is legitimate under the Second Amendment?


Yes. I believe they did not define "arms" so broadly, if only because of the narrower spectrum of armaments available at the time.
 
2012-12-03 10:09:08 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.


so wtf does this have to do with being allowed to buy a gun and go to the range and shoot it?
 
2012-12-03 10:09:56 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: sprawl15: Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant

Ditto (outside of America, I consider myself to be a centre-right moderate), but by modern American standards, we're still libs.

Of course, by modern American standards, Mussolini was a lib...


Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.
 
2012-12-03 10:10:04 AM  

sprawl15: whistleridge: sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

Tibi clausa meretrix os, puberes loquimur nunc.

People called Romanes, they go the house?

Fluorescent Testicle: Considering that you don't realise that Sprawl is an overly-sarcastic libby libpants

Amusingly, I'm really not very liberal. It's just a case where I tend to disagree with the left's positions while getting physically ill by the right's positions. BSABSVTraficant


It... it says "Romans go home"
 
2012-12-03 10:10:12 AM  
Colonial era ammunition magazine........
farm3.static.flickr.com

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
blogs.courant.com

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
static.guim.co.uk

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
www.jihadwatch.org

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
timeopinions.files.wordpress.com

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-03 10:10:15 AM  
Yes, the Framers of the Constitution valued it so much in 1787 that they waited until 1791 to pass it.
 
2012-12-03 10:10:18 AM  

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: vygramul: And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.

And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.

Then we are in agreement.

/Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment


The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.
 
2012-12-03 10:10:37 AM  

dittybopper: Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).


That one is referring specifically to criminal prosecutions and is explaining why this clause is necessary. And the second clause is directly related to the first. You can't look at that and say it applies to civil cases as well. You could use this to explain that the Second Amendment is indeed limiting arms to members of the militia.

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

That one refers to an ex post facto laws, and then says they can't be made, so it's limiting. The clause also explains the need for this article. You can't turn around and say this limits anything other than "retrospective laws." So it's not a direct comparison to the 2nd Amendment's phrasing.

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).

That one is explaining the rationale for the law.

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

As is this one.

The last two are not limiting, but the first two look like they are.
 
2012-12-03 10:11:42 AM  

Cythraul: dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]

justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.

'Morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence' suggests there are cases when that particular behavior, belief or occurrence is not acceptable, which would be a limitation. Otherwise, why would a justification be necessary to begin with?


You mean like how other nations strictly limit their citizens from owning firearms, or like how a person can be arrested and convicted for misusing firearms in the United States?
 
2012-12-03 10:11:46 AM  

vygramul: /Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment


Correct. That's that whole 10th amendment thing about how states can regulate where the federal government cannot.

You, sir, are a "tenther".
 
2012-12-03 10:12:15 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com 

mmm, bare arms.
 
2012-12-03 10:12:21 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
[farm3.static.flickr.com image 130x152]

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
[blogs.courant.com image 100x100]

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com image 188x105]

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
[static.guim.co.uk image 173x104]

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[www.jihadwatch.org image 131x92]

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[timeopinions.files.wordpress.com image 225x150]

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 250x172]


Can we apply that reasoning to limit 1st amendment rights to colonial printing capabilities? After all, at least one of those guys ordered ammunition off the Internet, which didn't exist when they wrote the 1st amendment...
 
2012-12-03 10:12:44 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And that's the point. Pretty much everyone but the most extreme people accepts that there is some level of regulation and prohibition allowed under the Second Amendment. Where exactly that line is drawn is a legitimate political discussion.


A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

(oddly, some people I know also make the claim they ignore any gun law they want because of the Constitution, including prohibitions on carrying/keeping a concealed weapon regardless of state; but the same people will say that anyone caught with pot should serve hard time because it's the law!)

(these topics have come up at work recently. should note that I have six firearms, concealed carry permit, and have never smoked weed in my life)
 
2012-12-03 10:13:29 AM  

Giltric: Well that football player was probably raised listening to music that direspects women by calling them biatches and hoes. If it wasn't a gun he probably would have stabbed her, or bludgeoned her or choked her with his own hands.

Maybe we should restrict the content of music and whatnot.


or outlaw knives, bludgeons and hands.

or go to the root cause and outlaw football (concussions), alcohol and pain killers.
 
2012-12-03 10:13:36 AM  

whistleridge: The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.


Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?
 
2012-12-03 10:13:57 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


I have heard Mr. Costas speak before. And I have read your posts before.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Costas is smarter than you are...


Holocaust Agnostic: Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.


...but this guy is way, way dumber than you.
 
2012-12-03 10:14:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: roadkillontheweb: That doesn't matter!
Only what the bible says matters, and Moses wasn't packing heat.

[writemiddleeast.files.wordpress.com image 800x450]
Moses is gonna wack you upside the head if you try to take his staff away.


I'll give you my staff when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
 
2012-12-03 10:14:22 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
farm3.static.flickr.com


Colonial era medical treatment:

i.imgur.com

Colonial era facial hair:

i.imgur.com

Colonial era labor solutions:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 10:14:42 AM  

dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]

justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.

'Morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence' suggests there are cases when that particular behavior, belief or occurrence is not acceptable, which would be a limitation. Otherwise, why would a justification be necessary to begin with?

You mean like how other nations strictly limit their citizens from owning firearms, or like how a person can be arrested and convicted for misusing firearms in the United States?


I think I was trying to say that your original statement that it's a justification and not a limitation was wrong because in my mind, it's both.

But, never mind. I think I'll drop it now as my attention span for debates is very limited.
 
2012-12-03 10:14:47 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Can't threaten to hurt people.
Can't commit slander/libel.
Can't do the above and claim religious immunity.
Can't kill people and claim religious immunity.
Can't rape people and claim religious immunity.


Right, because the 1st, much like the 2nd, is about how "the people" deal with "the government".
 
2012-12-03 10:14:50 AM  

the801: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400] 

mmm, bare arms.


When looking at that pic, I find myself to suddenly take on some of the same aspects as the AK.
 
2012-12-03 10:17:09 AM  

s2s2s2: vygramul: /Note that in Heller, even Scalia said that there are limits to the second amendment

Correct. That's that whole 10th amendment thing about how states can regulate where the federal government cannot.

You, sir, are a "tenther".


Typically, yes, but I'd state it more accurately as states being able to regulate that which is not forbidden to be regulated. A state can't limit your freedom of speech any more than the feds can.
 
2012-12-03 10:17:10 AM  

vygramul: the801: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400] 

mmm, bare arms.

When looking at that pic, I find myself to suddenly take on some of the same aspects as the AK.


And one wonders why the gun crowd gets angry when the Freudian aspects of gun-nuttery are mentioned...
 
2012-12-03 10:17:33 AM  

homelessdude: Colonial era ammunition magazine........
[farm3.static.flickr.com image 130x152]

Modern day ammunition magazine.......
[blogs.courant.com image 100x100]

Approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com image 188x105]

Really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws..................
[static.guim.co.uk image 173x104]

Really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[www.jihadwatch.org image 131x92]

Really, really, really approves of modern ammo magazine capacities and archaic laws.................
[timeopinions.files.wordpress.com image 225x150]

Really, really, really, really approves of stuff........but not really sure what or why.....but please sign that check at the bottom........you betcha!
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 250x172]


ok, can you now compare the healthcare provided by the government during colonial times and now?

is someone on your lawn?
 
2012-12-03 10:17:35 AM  

one small post for man: vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.

"At nine o'clock every night, Greenwich time," said Wemmick, "the gun fires. There he is, you see! And when you hear him go, I think you'll say he's a Stinger."

The piece of ordnance referred to, was mounted in a separate fortress, constructed of lattice-work. It was protected from the weather by an ingenious little tarpaulin contrivance in the nature of an umbrella.

/those were the days


Heh, I thought that looked familiar. I'm just reading that.

/Thanks, Project Gutenberg!
 
2012-12-03 10:18:03 AM  
So people realize that we live in 2012 now, not 1787, right?
 
2012-12-03 10:18:19 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?


I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:21 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

I have heard Mr. Costas speak before. And I have read your posts before.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Costas is smarter than you are...


Holocaust Agnostic: Mussolini was a lib by lib standards.

...but this guy is way, way dumber than you.


You don't get it man. Lib just means "anything I don't like"

/hitler was a lib
//tojo was a lib
///that dragoon guy in The Patriot: lib
 
2012-12-03 10:18:26 AM  
I never understood why people supposedly concerned with liberty want their lives ruled by men that have been dead for 200 years.
 
2012-12-03 10:18:33 AM  

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads


Because every thread deserves a bit of sound reasoning.
 
Displayed 50 of 502 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report