I've never gotten hate-mail, so here's my chance. - Page 14
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 161

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

  1. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    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 .
    Or you could try voting.

    What gives you the idea that I would want someone like you overthrowing my government?

    One of the reasons I own firearms is to prevent the crazy paranoid domestic terrorists from overthrowing my government because they were on the losing end of an election.

  2.   
  3. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Or you could try voting.

    What gives you the idea that I would want someone like you overthrowing my government?

    One of the reasons I own firearms is to prevent the crazy paranoid domestic terrorists from overthrowing my government because they were on the losing end of an election.
    Someone like me? That means what? Sounds really racist to me. Again with the name calling. Wow you antis sure love to sling mug when your beat back into your place. Do you know me? No you don't! I have No criminal history
    (not even a speeding ticket). Yet you feel the need to call me a terrorists. All I have to say to that is ROTFLMAO!

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

  4. #133
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Maybe the real question to ask is what his "little girl" would say about the issue?
    Go ahead. I don't think that you will get very far. In any case, I am glad that not everyone uses your logic. Since little girls have been run over by automobiles, maybe we should ban them. None of the "sensible" laws governing them (such as licensing, registration, taxation, requiring insurance) have prevented tens of thousands of people being killed every year by them. Far more than by relatively unregulated firearms. If regulation does not work with one "tool", what makes you think that it will work any better with another tool? And why even bother when the second tool causes far less death and destruction than the first?

  5. #134
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    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.
    Scalia can take a long walk off a short pier for all I care. The reason I gave is historically accurate and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I don't bow down to any man's interpretation of the written word. Words were defined long before the men that have chosen to butcher them.

    "not infringed" means unregulated, unrestricted, NOT LIMITED. That was the definition when they chose to use the word and it is the definition now, therefore it has the same meaning now that it did then.

    This whole argument is like debating with a 5 year old trying to convince me that 2+2, in fact, does not equal 4 anymore.
    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!

  6. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Or you could try voting.

    What gives you the idea that I would want someone like you overthrowing my government?

    One of the reasons I own firearms is to prevent the crazy paranoid domestic terrorists from overthrowing my government because they were on the losing end of an election.
    Although this response is not specifically targeting you S&WM&P40, what he said here is very true. Most people and ironically a lot who complain, don't involve themselves in their local politics nearly enough. You want to effect change, you have to start at the local level. Form organizations and watchdog your state representatives. When the time comes to elect your representatives and senators, do your research on the up and coming ones and vote out the old ones if they aren't serving your best interests. Talk to people you know about how important voting actually is, the system works if people would use it.

    At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?" He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    Nogods, by the definition of when such an act was warranted, believe me when I say you would be wanting to overthrow them as much as the rest of the populace. Your right in that quite a few nut jobs latch onto that whole "chains of tyranny" thing and want to be proactive and then they go to prison, because the vast majority of the US population doesn't agree with them that "its time".
    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!

  7. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    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.....
    If you truly take 2A with a literal meaning then you would not exclude nukes and bios. With that statement you have agreed that 2A does in fact have limit and there is a line over which one should not cross. The discussion then becomes where that line is drawn. Some have a line much more restrictive than you and some less. However it does appear that you are in agreement that a limit on arms is possible under 2A.

    This is like the man and woman who had just met and were talking on the train ride across country The conversation came around to ladies of the night and the woman said she was disguted with them. The man asked "Would you spend the night in my berth with me for $1,000,000". The woman said, "For that much money I probably would". He then said, "How about for $10". She said, "Certainly not, what kind of woman do you think I am"? He said, "We have already determined that, we are now just negotiating on price".

  8. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    "not infringed" means unregulated, unrestricted, NOT LIMITED. That was the definition when they chose to use the word and it is the definition now, therefore it has the same meaning now that it did then.
    OK, but not infringe what? The court wasn't defining " not infringe". Rather, it was defining the right to bear arms, which has no self-definition. Under our constitution, the SCOTUS is the entity we have chosen to add substance to the otherwise empty phrases of the constitution.

    Maybe an example will help. Imagine that we had amendment that said "the right of the people to sex shall not be infringed." What would and what would not be included in that right?

    If sex with your first cousin would not be included, then prohibiting sex with your first cousin would not be an infringement of the right to have sex because it is not part of the right in the first place.
    Saying "shall not be infronged" is simply responded to with "we aren't infringing your right to bear arms by prohibiting you from owning a nuclear weapon because your right to bear arms doesn't include the right to own nuclear weapons in the first place."

    Now you may disagree with the SCOTUS definition for the right. Fine, you can express your opinion as to what you think the definition should be. You can assemmble and peacefully protest about that issue. You can seek change of that definition through the political process.

    But I think threatening the overthrow of our government because you don't like the current status of a SCOTUS ruling is treason.

  9. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    OK, but not infringe what? The court wasn't defining " not infringe". Rather, it was defining the right to bear arms, which has no self-definition. Under our constitution, the SCOTUS is the entity we have chosen to add substance to the otherwise empty phrases of the constitution.

    Maybe an example will help. Imagine that we had amendment that said "the right of the people to sex shall not be infringed." What would and what would not be included in that right?

    If sex with your first cousin would not be included, then prohibiting sex with your first cousin would not be an infringement of the right to have sex because it is not part of the right in the first place.
    Saying "shall not be infronged" is simply responded to with "we aren't infringing your right to bear arms by prohibiting you from owning a nuclear weapon because your right to bear arms doesn't include the right to own nuclear weapons in the first place."

    Now you may disagree with the SCOTUS definition for the right. Fine, you can express your opinion as to what you think the definition should be. You can assemmble and peacefully protest about that issue. You can seek change of that definition through the political process.

    But I think threatening the overthrow of our government because you don't like the current status of a SCOTUS ruling is treason.
    LOL, threatening to overthrow our government. Point to one post in this whole one hundred plus post thread. That someone has stated that they intend to over throw the government? You won't find it because it's not there. Because no one said such a thing! Members have simply quoted the words of our founding fathers, nothing more and nothing less. It's amazing how you have the ability to pull things out of the air and try and claim they have been said.

    You ask why people should have this kind of weapon or that kind. Then when they point out the reasoning behind why people are allowed to own such firearms. You start crying that they are talking about treason. Lets not forget that it was an act of treason that founded this country! If the people of this country did not stand up to England by committing an act of high treason. We would still be a colony of England right now, we would not be debating what you think the Second Amendment means.

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

  10. anyone know of a holster to Carrie an RPG 7 concealed

  11. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    OK, but not infringe what? The court wasn't defining " not infringe". Rather, it was defining the right to bear arms, which has no self-definition. Under our constitution, the SCOTUS is the entity we have chosen to add substance to the otherwise empty phrases of the constitution.
    Actually that was one judge's dissenting opinion was it not? It was not the entire SCOTUS opinion on that day, there is more than one judge. As for a definition being available for what arms? Read the federalist papers and you will have your definition. They meant arms equal to the military. Obviously it would be difficult if not impossible to overthrow a tyrannical government armed like ours with .22s and shotguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Now you may disagree with the SCOTUS definition for the right. Fine, you can express your opinion as to what you think the definition should be. You can assemmble and peacefully protest about that issue. You can seek change of that definition through the political process.

    But I think threatening the overthrow of our government because you don't like the current status of a SCOTUS ruling is treason.
    Um..who's threatening to overthrow anything over a SCOTUS ruling? Use "One" instead of "You" please, because I'm not saying we need to overthrow anything. I know people normally write that way, but let's not put "you" and "overthrow government" in the same sentence when your talking to me, I would appreciate it.

    Actually the treason lies in any government official who chooses to ignore the Constitution or the written works that already existed before and during the founders' time to define the ideologies that were present in our founders minds.

    Look, the answer is there and "interpretation" is just a fancy word for covering up someone's stupidity. The words define themselves, whether one can understand it or not is another matter entirely.
    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!

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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