Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 9
Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    A majority of the Justices of the SCOTUS presently seem satisfied leaving the line drawing to the political process, based on the Heller decision and the Justices comments in the oral argument of McDonald.

    There will three groups emerging from this process - one each on the extremes (the "no guns" and the "all guns") and the great majority in the middle.

    The "no guns" and "all guns" will spend their time flapping the lips on forums and in front of Starbucks about their extremist views. The rest of us will participate in the political process trying to secure the best possible outcome for our respective views.

    Now ask yourself, which group are you going to participate in?
    What makes you think that we "extremist" believers in the Constitution aren't participating in the political process?

  2.   
  3. I'm not sure what I wrote that prompted a response like that, nogods. You seem to be making some important assumptions about my views, not to mention my political involvement or lack thereof. All I'm trying to do is present a rational argument defending the idea of legalizing fully automatic weapons without extra restrictions (pre-ban only, tax stamps, etc.). What about that do you find extreme?

  4. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceFrank View Post
    I'm not sure what I wrote that prompted a response like that, nogods. You seem to be making some important assumptions about my views, not to mention my political involvement or lack thereof. All I'm trying to do is present a rational argument defending the idea of legalizing fully automatic weapons without extra restrictions (pre-ban only, tax stamps, etc.). What about that do you find extreme?
    SF, you'll find that there are certain posters, who, when their argument can't be defended, will resort to insults, innuendo, and sarcasm. Get used to it.

  5. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    A majority of the Justices of the SCOTUS presently seem satisfied leaving the line drawing to the political process, based on the Heller decision and the Justices comments in the oral argument of McDonald.

    There will three groups emerging from this process - one each on the extremes (the "no guns" and the "all guns") and the great majority in the middle.

    The "no guns" and "all guns" will spend their time flapping the lips on forums and in front of Starbucks about their extremist views. The rest of us will participate in the political process trying to secure the best possible outcome for our respective views.

    Now ask yourself, which group are you going to participate in?
    Looks, like we have another forum infiltrator on our hands...

    Once again, just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

    AND IF you actually read the oral arguments, you would find ONLY the Justices on the LEFT, wanted to leave line drawing up to political processes...
    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...cotustrans.pdf

    E.G.:
    JUSTICE KENNEDY: (to James Feldman) ... all people, most people in the United States, the public meaning of the Second Amendment was that there was an individual right to bear arms, and that's because it was fundamental. If it's not fundamental, then Heller is wrong, it seems to me.

    MR. GURA: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.

    The so-called "political process" argument you make is a fallacy, because the only one trying to go that route was Attorney James Feldman on behalf of Chicago KEEPING THE GUN BAN, before the court...

    IF believing in Thomas Jefferson's & the Founding Fathers view of the Constitution & the Second Amendment makes me an Extremist, then so be it...

    I am in good company...


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  6. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    A majority of the Justices of the SCOTUS presently seem satisfied leaving the line drawing to the political process, based on the Heller decision and the Justices comments in the oral argument of McDonald.

    There will three groups emerging from this process - one each on the extremes (the "no guns" and the "all guns") and the great majority in the middle.

    The "no guns" and "all guns" will spend their time flapping the lips on forums and in front of Starbucks about their extremist views. The rest of us will participate in the political process trying to secure the best possible outcome for our respective views.

    Now ask yourself, which group are you going to participate in?
    Upon further reflection, here are the groups I see: sheep, wolves (which includes the ruling aristocracy which feeds on the sheep), sheepdogs, and armed sheep. The armed sheep think they are sheepdogs; however, when the ruling arisotocracy tells them they can't own that particular weapon anymore, they simply hand over their firearms, duck their heads, and sheepishly head back to the herd, where they belong.

    Now, which group would you like to be in?

  7. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Upon further reflection, here are the groups I see: sheep, wolves (which includes the ruling aristocracy which feeds on the sheep), sheepdogs, and armed sheep. The armed sheep think they are sheepdogs; however, when the ruling arisotocracy tells them they can't own that particular weapon anymore, they simply hand over their firearms, duck their heads, and sheepishly head back to the herd, where they belong.

    Now, which group would you like to be in?
    So, What you are saying is I'm a Phat, long haired gray sheep dog?
    Semper Fi

  8. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by ricbak View Post
    So, What you are saying is I'm a Phat, long haired gray sheep dog?
    Well, yeah...same as me, brother, except for the hair (you lucky dawg)...

  9. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Upon reflection, here are the groups I see: sheep, wolves (which includes the ruling aristocracy which feeds on the sheep), sheepdogs, and armed sheep. The armed sheep think they are sheepdogs; however, when the ruling arisotocracy tells them they can't carry that particular weapon anymore, they simply hand over their firearms, duck their heads, and sheepishly head back to the herd, where they belong.

    Now, which group would you like to be in?
    That kind of thinking is why you'll always be disenfranchised. It exhibits a tinfoil hat mentality. Calling people sheep because they won't follow you down a delusional path is a symptom of that delusion.

    People who live in constant fear of being disarmed and anger over not being allowed to possess whatever weapon wherever they please are the real threat to out freedom and the Constitution on which it is built. They end up building bunkers, attacking the IRS with a plane, or trying to break into the Pentagon.

  10. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Looks, like we have another forum infiltrator on our hands...

    Once again, just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?
    Everyone who disagrees with your simplistic assertions is an "infiltrator"? infiltrating what? your bunker militia? that's some serious paranoia being exhibited.

    Once again, what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? You know, if you can't read it is available on audio.

    This is from the MAJORITY opinion - that's the opinion agreed to by the 5 justices in the "5-4" ruling.

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

  11. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    That kind of thinking is why you'll always be disenfranchised. It exhibits a tinfoil hat mentality. Calling people sheep because they won't follow you down a delusional path is a symptom of that delusion.

    People who live in constant fear of being disarmed and anger over not being allowed to possess whatever weapon wherever they please are the real threat to out freedom and the Constitution on which it is built. They end up building bunkers, attacking the IRS with a plane, or trying to break into the Pentagon.
    What kind of Anti-American Trash is That?

    Don't hide behind the Free Speech Part then Trash the rest...
    Semper Fi

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 07:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast