PDA

View Full Version : Screwed...



sandsjames
01-16-2013, 04:13 PM
Welcome the dictator...

Come and get 'em from me...

Did he really mention hunters rights? Does he have any concept of the 2nd amendment?

drc100882
01-16-2013, 04:32 PM
Stop. I don't have speakers on my computer and my 3G is slow today. What you're doing is just a big tease.

imported_DannyJ
01-16-2013, 10:28 PM
So he's against military style rifles and magazines that are over 10 rounds?

What use do you have that justifies having either?

Bottom line: you can still have guns.

BLOB: Where do you draw the line of what is reasonable for civilians to own and what isn't?

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 12:06 AM
So he's against military style rifles and magazines that are over 10 rounds?

What use do you have that justifies having either?

Bottom line: you can still have guns.

BLOB: Where do you draw the line of what is reasonable for civilians to own and what isn't?

Are you serious? Do you know anything about the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It's so that the people can defend themselves against the tyranny of government if necessary. How is that even an option if that same government is the only one with the "military style rifles and magazines that are over 10 rounds?" He should his idiocy by mentioning "the rights of hunters". I don't remember that part of 2A.

And where do you think it stops. Now it's the "military style rifles" until the next shooting takes place with a 9mm. Then there will be "no need" for any semi-automatic. Then it will be the revolver/shotgun/whatever.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I may climb aboard the PYB bandwagon.

DocBones
01-17-2013, 12:47 AM
Because of the placement of the commas in the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans do have the right to bear arms.

The extension of that thought IS to give the people of the USA the right to take back the government, by force of arms, if the government ever becomes too odious to live under.

The US govenment has already placed a stumbling block in the way of the intent of the 2nd amendment. They have illegalized, unless one can pay the exorbitant fee to own automatic weapons.

The police forces and the the military already have such an edge that owning a semi automatic rifle is over matched.

Can a citizen own grenades? Anti aircraft weapons, and so on?

Maybe. If that citizen is rich. And therefor has the permits to own such weapons.

How would the American citizen hope to gain superiority?

There are drones snooping on all of us, already. What would it take to arm up a police drone?

The American citizen would have to be well hidden and disguised to even stand a chance to live for a week, if the government ever decides to quell an America that someday may reach its boiling point.

So...what do we do? Let the goverment place more stumbling blocks in the way of owning a firearm that someone in the government decides is too dangerous for us to own, now?

Do we, as a citizen force, knuckle under, again, just as we did in the 1990s?

Do we say, "Enough!"?

I suppose that we'll have to wait and see where the ground swell goes.

This is not a subversive statement. This is just my thoughts on what is happening, right now.

Vrake
01-17-2013, 01:11 AM
Well said Doc. IMHO only time will tell.

Those of us raised on shooting have had time and freedom to do as we see fit under the law. We go out we plink or try for distance. What ever floats our boats we can do it. Yet a deranged person can get around it all and carry out a mass shooting if they have the drive.

One killed then stole his Moms guns to go to that school. The movie guy just had a plan and unsuspecting victims. You can't fight crazy.


This is fear mongering. Mr the Pres how many murders were there in Chicago last year? How many of them were from a long gun or an assault rifle?

raider8169
01-17-2013, 01:58 AM
The extension of that thought IS to give the people of the USA the right to take back the government, by force of arms, if the government ever becomes too odious to live under.

Ummmm, no. The government is the people. If you dont like the government that is in place vote for the other guy. Nothing gives you the right to take arms agianst your government. Instead you should be pissed at your fellow man for voting the people into office that do not agree with your views. You forget that your views are unpopular, we try and make the masses happy not lone individuals.

tiredretiredE7
01-17-2013, 02:34 AM
Are you serious? Do you know anything about the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It's so that the people can defend themselves against the tyranny of government if necessary. How is that even an option if that same government is the only one with the "military style rifles and magazines that are over 10 rounds?" He should his idiocy by mentioning "the rights of hunters". I don't remember that part of 2A.

And where do you think it stops. Now it's the "military style rifles" until the next shooting takes place with a 9mm. Then there will be "no need" for any semi-automatic. Then it will be the revolver/shotgun/whatever.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I may climb aboard the PYB bandwagon.

Already aboard, just liked to get PYB spun up so I could see the "otherside" of issues. I like PYB, just don't like his car.

Banned
01-17-2013, 03:07 AM
Are you serious? Do you know anything about the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It's so that the people can defend themselves against the tyranny of government if necessary.

You are on crack if you think for one second Americans would hesitate to obey if the government told them to kill the Muslims, the Commies, or some other "un-American" minority group.

Bottom line - guns are useless if unless there is an intelligent person behind it. And unfortunately, the vast majority of people are not intelligent.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 03:37 AM
You are on crack if you think for one second Americans would hesitate to obey if the government told them to kill the Muslims, the Commies, or some other "un-American" minority group.

Bottom line - guns are useless if unless there is an intelligent person behind it. And unfortunately, the vast majority of people are not intelligent.

Stay on topic, Joe. This isn't about killing Muslims.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 03:40 AM
Ummmm, no. The government is the people. If you dont like the government that is in place vote for the other guy. Nothing gives you the right to take arms agianst your government. Instead you should be pissed at your fellow man for voting the people into office that do not agree with your views. You forget that your views are unpopular, we try and make the masses happy not lone individuals.

Nothing gives you the right to take arms against your government? What country are you living in? Please don't forget that the reason we have the US is because the people took up arms against their government. When the votes don't matter, when the freedoms are taken away, that is EXACTLY the time to take up arms against the government. To do anything else would be a failure of the people.

CrustySMSgt
01-17-2013, 04:11 AM
All the rhetoric is getting old... I'm all for protecting and defending the constitution, but in the end, it is just another document, like the bible... the principles must adapt to the society it serves or it become irrelevant. Those who wrote the constitution had no idea what the future would bring... they were plinking each other with muskets and the order of battle was to stand in a line and whoever could load their muskets the fastest and mow down the other line wins. Obviously doesn't work so well today... and neither does the concept of everyone owning whatever they think they need to "protect themselves from the government." ANd like every hot button issue, there are nut jobs on both sides, the "ban them all" crowd and the "I want a M2 .50 cal and 10,000 rounds of ammo on the roof of my compound to repel the UN when they come to take my property" crowd.

Even Ben Franklin didn't agree with the constitution as it was written, but conceeded that given it was the work of great men, it was as perfect as it could be. So if there was dissension at the time it was written, how can it be expected that over 200 years later it can still be expected to universally apply? Certainly not advocating abolishing the constitution, but who's to say who is right and who is wrong? No doubt we are a nation divided, the recent election clearly demonstrated that. But in the end, the people have spoken and we've elected our representatives. Sucks for the 49% who didn't get their way, but they'll get their chance again in 4 years... until then, I'm all for being politically active and speaking out, but the constant negativity is getting old.


Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

CrustySMSgt
01-17-2013, 04:13 AM
Nothing gives you the right to take arms against your government? What country are you living in? Please don't forget that the reason we have the US is because the people took up arms against their government. When the votes don't matter, when the freedoms are taken away, that is EXACTLY the time to take up arms against the government. To do anything else would be a failure of the people.

So in a country divided, at what point do you decide your vote doesn't count and start a revolt? And who gets to make that call?

raider8169
01-17-2013, 04:53 AM
Nothing gives you the right to take arms against your government? What country are you living in? Please don't forget that the reason we have the US is because the people took up arms against their government. When the votes don't matter, when the freedoms are taken away, that is EXACTLY the time to take up arms against the government. To do anything else would be a failure of the people.

If you really think about it you added to my point. What document says you have the right to take up arms agianst your government? Answer, none. How many laws are there to prevent it? Many. Our rights and freedoms are all documented. We can take up arms agianst other governments but not our own. Taking up arms agianst your own government will get your arrested and likely charged for treason or some crap. If shit hit the fan I am sure things will work out and whoever wins gets to make the rules. The losing side will be charged with crimes but still nothing gives you the right to take arms agianst your government. If it happens it is because you have free will and made the choice to disobey the law.

Banned
01-17-2013, 09:44 AM
Stay on topic, Joe. This isn't about killing Muslims.

Take a stupid and uneducated population, and heavily arm them... they will literally police themselves. Anyone who breaks lockstep with the herd or moves away from the group-think will be quickly killed by a patriotic concerned citizen.

Why do you think critical thinking and science is being pushed to the sidelines in many states education systems and replaced with religious indoctrination? Because they don't want you to THINK.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 11:52 AM
Take a stupid and uneducated population, and heavily arm them... they will literally police themselves. Anyone who breaks lockstep with the herd or moves away from the group-think will be quickly killed by a patriotic concerned citizen.

Why do you think critical thinking and science is being pushed to the sidelines in many states education systems and replaced with religious indoctrination? Because they don't want you to THINK.

Stay on topic, Joe. This isn't about religion.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 11:52 AM
Take a stupid and uneducated population, and heavily arm them... they will literally police themselves. Anyone who breaks lockstep with the herd or moves away from the group-think will be quickly killed by a patriotic concerned citizen.

Why do you think critical thinking and science is being pushed to the sidelines in many states education systems and replaced with religious indoctrination? Because they don't want you to THINK.

Stay on topic, Joe. This isn't about religion.

Banned
01-17-2013, 11:58 AM
Stay on topic, Joe. This isn't about religion.

Yes, it is. American Christianity and gun violence go hand in hand.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 12:02 PM
Yes, it is. American Christianity and gun violence go hand in hand.

I'm glad you are intelligent enough to talk about the issue and not go to your usual aganda checklist. Oh...wait...

Banned
01-17-2013, 12:12 PM
Yup that's right buddy. Glad you guys are doing the right thing and valuing human life and all that jazz.

http://www.freespeechstickers.com/images/warning_i_cling_to_my_guns_religion_and_constituti on.png

Notice how gun nuts can't go for five seconds without babbling about jesus and shit. You bring it upon yourselves.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 12:23 PM
Yup that's right buddy. Glad you guys are doing the right thing and valuing human life and all that jazz.

http://www.freespeechstickers.com/images/warning_i_cling_to_my_guns_religion_and_constituti on.png

Notice how gun nuts can't go for five seconds without babbling about jesus and shit. You bring it upon yourselves.

When was Jesus brought up, at all, in this thread, other than by you?

I love how we/they are "gun nuts". It's almost like those damn voting nuts saying their rights were being violated because it's too hard to get to the voting booth.

Banned
01-17-2013, 12:28 PM
My point is that the gun lobby is being peddled by dangerous zealots.

Even religion aside, there is an ideology behind it - you yourself admitted you were willing to infringe other people's free speech rights to reach your goal of putting a gun in every household.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 12:33 PM
My point is that the gun lobby is being peddled by dangerous zealots.

Even religion aside, there is an ideology behind it - you yourself admitted you were willing to infringe other people's free speech rights to reach your goal of putting a gun in every household.

What free speech rights am I talking about infringing on?

Banned
01-17-2013, 12:55 PM
What free speech rights am I talking about infringing on?

You claimed in another thread you want to forbid medical professionals from asking about guns, becaus you're scared that'll lower gun sales.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 01:02 PM
You claimed in another thread you want to forbid medical professionals from asking about guns, becaus you're scared that'll lower gun sales.

No, Joe. Wrong again. I said that I wouldn't support a REQUIREMENT for medical professionals to ask about guns. And I never mentioned anything about it lowering gun sales. I only stated that the gun question is irrelevant. The only relevant question is if I'm thinking about harming myself or others.

Banned
01-17-2013, 01:03 PM
Except the thread was about doctors not being allowed to ask the question. But REALLY good try on back peddling on your argument.

sandsjames
01-17-2013, 01:19 PM
Except the thread was about doctors not being allowed to ask the question. But REALLY good try on back peddling on your argument.

And this thread was about being screwed with the new gun laws, yet you turn it into something else. Are you really the one trying to say that every post in a thread has to be exactly on topic?

DocBones
01-17-2013, 02:23 PM
If the 2nd amendment is so out of date and useless, then it needs to be repealed. It hasn't been repealed.

bluecyclone1
01-17-2013, 02:33 PM
Yup that's right buddy. Glad you guys are doing the right thing and valuing human life and all that jazz.

http://www.freespeechstickers.com/images/warning_i_cling_to_my_guns_religion_and_constituti on.png

Notice how gun nuts can't go for five seconds without babbling about jesus and shit. You bring it upon yourselves.

At the risk of sounding PYB-eske here:sorry, if America is filled with so many "zealots" and "idiots" then #1, why are you still in this country, and #2 why are you still in the military? I'm curious to know exactly what makes you tick Joe.

Pullinteeth
01-17-2013, 02:54 PM
Yes, it is. American Christianity and gun violence go hand in hand.

Right...cause we all know that Jared Lee Loughner and Ahmed Hassan were Christian wingnuts...oh wait...


Except the thread was about doctors not being allowed to ask the question. But REALLY good try on back peddling on your argument.

Wrong yet again...it was about Drs only being allowed to ask the question if it has some possible relevance to the care of their patient...

drc100882
01-17-2013, 03:05 PM
[QUOTE=DannyJ;601299]So he's against military style rifles and magazines that are over 10 rounds?

What use do you have that justifies having either?

QUOTE]

haha I love the "military style rifle" argument. But I'll just answer your question.

The AR15 is the rifle I am MOST familiar with. I know how to fire it, clear it, break it down, clean it, run function tests on it and change parts that need replacing. That justifies my having an AR15. Only a moron would buy a gun without knowing how it performs. I own handguns as well, and I know how to do all of the things I just listed, however, my AR15 is my weapon of choice because I am most confident with it.
As for the 30 round magazines... when I go to the range it's just a matter of being able to consistantly fire without having to stop every two minutes to change my magazine. Does that answer your question?

Banned
01-20-2013, 05:28 AM
Right...cause we all know that Jared Lee Loughner and Ahmed Hassan were Christian wingnuts...oh wait...

Wrong yet again...it was about Drs only being allowed to ask the question if it has some possible relevance to the care of their patient...

And praytell, who would be the "expert" in what the "possible relevance" would be?

I hope your mechanic doesn't share your conservative logic. You bring the car in for a battery relay, but he doesn't mention the cracked belt to you because that's not "relevant".


Oh, and for the win:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/379351_419369961478574_247149726_n.jpg

'MURICA!!

You really can't make this shit up... fundies say the darndest things.

bluecyclone1
01-21-2013, 12:08 AM
An interesting duality one has as an individual who is the only "friend" of a person who would be considered a pro-gun and pro-constitution zealot with a degree in - of all things - religion. Not to mention living/serving in the military of a country colonized by people who were considered to be religious and political zealots. Just sayin'.

Banned
01-21-2013, 06:51 AM
Actually we see eye-to-eye on separation of church and state. Only hot issue we really disagree on is gun control.

sandsjames
01-21-2013, 01:59 PM
Actually we see eye-to-eye on separation of church and state. Only hot issue we really disagree on is gun control.It doesn't bother you at all that they use the assault rifle angle when it's very clear that it wasn't the gun used?

Vrake
01-21-2013, 02:13 PM
I am still mad my houseboat sank. All the guns I had are now gone and no proof exists I ever had them. I didn't get to claim them on my insurence either. :)

efmbman
01-21-2013, 02:27 PM
Nothing gives you the right to take arms against your government? What country are you living in? Please don't forget that the reason we have the US is because the people took up arms against their government. When the votes don't matter, when the freedoms are taken away, that is EXACTLY the time to take up arms against the government. To do anything else would be a failure of the people.

I'm sure I will regret this...

Based on your statement quoted above, would you then say that the Confederate States during the Civil War were simply exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

bluecyclone1
01-21-2013, 03:33 PM
I am still mad my houseboat sank. All the guns I had are now gone and no proof exists I ever had them. I didn't get to claim them on my insurence either. :)

That sucks. My condolences to you for your loss.

Banned
01-21-2013, 03:36 PM
It doesn't bother you at all that they use the assault rifle angle when it's very clear that it wasn't the gun used?

I'm not sure what you're talking about.


I am still mad my houseboat sank. All the guns I had are now gone and no proof exists I ever had them. I didn't get to claim them on my insurence either. :)

That blows. Why couldn't you claim them on your insurance?


I'm sure I will regret this...

Based on your statement quoted above, would you then say that the Confederate States during the Civil War were simply exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

Also defending the Fifth Amendment - they were just defending their "property" - their slaves. Most Southerners believed the Christian god put the white man was put on this earth to rule over the blacks - the Southerners even created an entire pseudo-science, mostly based on lies and fabrications, "proving" that blacks were less intelligent and inferior to whites.

TJMAC77SP
01-21-2013, 04:44 PM
I'm sure I will regret this...

Based on your statement quoted above, would you then say that the Confederate States during the Civil War were simply exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

You know that is sincerely a good question (from a purely intellectual viewpoint). We are a country founded on revolution. Even reading the Declaration of Independence one would glean that the CSA did indeed have the right to take up arms against the federal government. Of course this is an academic argument only and I am not supporting the CSA nor its actions (Joe, did you read that?) but I have always found it an interesting point.

Truth is that is where the argument of so-called Constitutionalists breaks down. The myopic belief that the Constitution is a simple and absolute document. Far from it.

Banned
01-21-2013, 06:38 PM
From an academic standpoint yes. And I agree that it became absolutely necessary to establish that states did NOT have the right to break away - one can imagine the chaos that would have ensued if the fine states of Texas or Alabama could break away at any time when the Federal government gave rights to blacks, women, gays, or other "undesirables".

Either way, I would say our Latin neighbors breathed a sigh of relief that the CSA was defeated at inception!

Pullinteeth
01-22-2013, 01:09 PM
And praytell, who would be the "expert" in what the "possible relevance" would be?

I hope your mechanic doesn't share your conservative logic. You bring the car in for a battery relay, but he doesn't mention the cracked belt to you because that's not "relevant".

Oh, and for the win:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/379351_419369961478574_247149726_n.jpg

'MURICA!!

You really can't make this shit up... fundies say the darndest things.

For the win? So you think an atheist and a muslim represent "American Christianity?"


From an academic standpoint yes. And I agree that it became absolutely necessary to establish that states did NOT have the right to break away - one can imagine the chaos that would have ensued if the fine states of Texas or Alabama could break away at any time when the Federal government gave rights to blacks, women, gays, or other "undesirables".

Either way, I would say our Latin neighbors breathed a sigh of relief that the CSA was defeated at inception!

Why would you say that? They had slaves too...in fact, 20+ years after abolition in the U.S., there were still Latin American countries with legal salvery...

sandsjames
01-22-2013, 02:14 PM
For the win? So you think an atheist and a muslim represent "American Christianity?"



Why would you say that? They had slaves too...in fact, 20+ years after abolition in the U.S., there were still Latin American countries with legal salvery...

No no no...you must remember...ONLY the South (the gun toting christians) owned slaves. Nobody in the North, or anywhere else for that matter, owned slaves. South bad, North good, no grey area.

bluecyclone1
01-22-2013, 02:27 PM
No no no...you must remember...ONLY the South (the gun toting christians) owned slaves. Nobody in the North, or anywhere else for that matter, owned slaves. South bad, North good, no grey area.

Don't forget that those good northern folk, after they put those evil southern gun toting, slave owning Christians in their place, did all those good deeds for those folks with the darker colored skin out west. Free one group just to turn around and enslave another. :whip

sandsjames
01-22-2013, 02:45 PM
Don't forget that those good northern folk, after they put those evil southern gun toting, slave owning Christians in their place, did all those good deeds for those folks with the darker colored skin out west. Free one group just to turn around and enslave another. :whip

Yeah, they were good people.

DocBones
05-12-2013, 05:38 PM
BlueCyclone, you mean that all of the Smurfs were discriminated against?

Banned
05-12-2013, 08:19 PM
For the win? So you think an atheist and a muslim represent "American Christianity?"

Semantics. American Christianity values weapons and violence... but that does not mean that there are non-Christians who do the same.


Why would you say that? They had slaves too...in fact, 20+ years after abolition in the U.S., there were still Latin American countries with legal salvery...

That was a reference to Confederate plans at the time to invade Latin America and establish an Empire.