I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance. - Page 13
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 161

Thread: I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance.

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    Cite?
    Post #113, of course.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  2.   
  3. #122
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    As for "qualified" people it is more a matter of determining who is "not qualified" for constitutional purposes, or more accurately, who is not covered by the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
    Traditionally, in this country that's been determined by the "paper bag test".

  4. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    I'm not sure I see the relevance of labor unions to this discussion.

    At least the AHSA talking points being presented had SOMETHING to do with guns and [a hatred of] gun owner rights.
    That is why I apologized for going off topic. I read the reply someone was making and just could not ignore it.

    Also would you please tell me what AHSH stands for. I tried Google but got Alabama High school Sports Association and would like to be cured of my ignorance.

  5. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Also would you please tell me what AHSH stands for. I tried Google but got Alabama High school Sports Association and would like to be cured of my ignorance.
    American Hunters and Shooters Association A defunct front group for the brady campaign. Purported to be a non extremeist alternative to the NRA. In reality they supported bans on pretty much every thing but bolt action .22s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...rs_Association
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  6. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    American Hunters and Shooters Association A defunct front group for the brady campaign. Purported to be a non extremeist alternative to the NRA. In reality they supported bans on pretty much every thing but bolt action .22s

    American Hunters and Shooters Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Thank you very much Treo, for educating me and providing a link to where I could find out more about the AHSA.

  7. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    That is why I apologized for going off topic. I read the reply someone was making and just could not ignore it.

    Also would you please tell me what AHSH stands for. I tried Google but got Alabama High school Sports Association and would like to be cured of my ignorance.
    Equivalent organizations would include:

    • Blacks for Jim Crow
    • Jews for the Nuremberg Laws
    • Homosexuals for Gay Bashing

    They used to regularly troll the firearms message boards and usenet, looking for the gullible whom they could hoodwink.

  8. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    I'm with you. Even the "Shall Not Be Infringed" literal interpreters of 2A are with you as well even though they won't admit it. When you ask them a simple question like "should somebody on trial (but not yet convicted) for murder be allowed to carry a gun into the courtroom?" or "should 1st-graders be allowed to carry at school?" or "should nukes be available to any private citizen who can afford one?", they'll dodge the question. They know that such things shouldn't happen but they're too afraid to answer "no" in public to any of those questions because it would mean they've just agreed to a restriction on 2A. IMO, I think many of the literal interpreters of 2A are angry because they've had their right denied because of a criminal record, habitual substance abuse, etc.

    I'd like to see every state allow CC and OC....to anyone who passes a background check and passes a basic firearm safety instruction course.
    I think you must have forgotten that little discussion we had on that other thread about this very subject. I didn't dodge anything and went straight to the point and you were never able to refute anything I said was fact with anything other than your own opinion and emotional knee jerk remarks.

    I am a literal reader of the ENTIRE constitution, even when it does not agree with me and I will disagree and even fight against those like you that think that the US Constitution needs to be "interpreted".

    I do not have a record of any kind and I am a very happy person.

    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    In response to your 2 points:

    1. The Constitution has always been open to legislative debate. It even contains guidelines for altering it. It's called Article V. Why do you think there are now 27 amendments instead of the original 10?

    2. Having to pass through metal detectors at a courthouse or an airport restricts the criminals as well. So does preventing entire classes of weapons from being available like rocket launchers or hand grenades. A law against certain convicted criminals from carrying will stop them from doing it again...when they're caught and sent to jail because of it. Happens all the time. Several times a week I peruse through the mugshots that're posted on the local paper's website. I almost always see people that get busted for possessing firearms when they're not supposed to. Those people are going to jail and won't be a threat to you and me.....all because of a law that restricts their 2A rights.
    1) No argument there
    2) Rocket launchers and hand grenades ARE available in some states, like mine. We call those class 3s, or more specifically Destructive Devices.

    The ONLY thing you will ever get me to agree on are nukes and biologicals and that's only because they are such MASSIVELY destructive devices. Nothing else can kill 10's of thousands of people with the flip of a switch.

    Our founders intended for us to have access to arms equal to our government, so we could throw off the chains of tyranny if we, as a nation, were so inclined. It should not take a great intelligence to see the exquisite simplicity in that purpose and how it's application is TIMELESS.

    Now let me see you argue that last statement.....
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

  9. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    Our founders intended for us to have access to arms equal to our government, so we could throw off the chains of tyranny if we, as a nation, were so inclined. It should not take a great intelligence to see the exquisite simplicity in that purpose and how it's application is TIMELESS.
    Some people don't believe in "tyranny" as a concept. They believe that whatever a government and its employees do, especially to the citizens, should be accepted without question... unless it negatively impacts THEM.

    I knew a retired Canadian cop like that in the FULLBORE long range rifle mailing list. He thought nobody should have "sniper rifles" (although he couldn't explain the difference between a 1,000 yard target rifle and a sniper rifle), and that one had an ABSOLUTE duty to obey the government, up to and including entering a racial concentration camp... that is until he got into a dispute with the Canadian gun control bureaucracy, who started sharing his private emails from him with a couple of Canadian cops who were his bete noirs. He of course whined about the injustice of the whole thing. I quoted Pastor Niemoller's warning to those who don't speak up against injustice... to which he replied, "What does THAT mean???"

    But then nihilists are like that...

  10. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    Our founders intended for us to have access to arms equal to our government, so we could throw off the chains of tyranny if we, as a nation, were so inclined. It should not take a great intelligence to see the exquisite simplicity in that purpose and how it's application is TIMELESS.

    Now let me see you argue that last statement.....
    I'l let Scalia do it.:

    There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendmentís right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 128 S. Ct. 1830, 170 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

    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 Studentsí 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 identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

  11. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I'l let Scalia do it.:

    There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 128 S. Ct. 1830, 170 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

    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 identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
    Yet our own government has time and time again upheld, that Hate speech is a protected right of the people under the First Amendment. When the people no longer have the means to over throw a tyrantic government. We no longer have a government by the people for the people. We are left with a dictatorship and tyranny .

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

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