|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
08-13-2019, 02:37 PM
|
#1
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
|
"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?
Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"
I borrowed that but would like to know the answer from any of you who feel it is alright to infringe others' rights.
Pols wet their fingers and put them in the wind after an incident or 3 of some awful senseless violence and react instead of acting. I say if we allow them to continue to erode the constitution like they have been getting away with, then I suppose we get what we deserve and we will either be serfs or die defending our rights. It really is that simple. It is not "gun violence" it is senseless violence.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...fles-kind/amp/ I understand that statistics mean nothing to liberals but find this intriguing
ban hammers why don't you
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
08-13-2019, 03:52 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,124
|
We recall products that hurt people, so why don't we recall assault rifles?
|
|
|
|
08-13-2019, 04:00 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
We recall products that hurt people, so why don't we recall assault rifles?
|
We recall things that are defective. Plain and simple. You are once again pulling something as obscure as a safety recall as your reason for banning “assault “ rifles? They seem to work fine in most instances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
08-13-2019, 04:01 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,124
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot
"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?
Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"
I borrowed that but would like to know the answer from any of you who feel it is alright to infringe others' rights.
Pols wet their fingers and put them in the wind after an incident or 3 of some awful senseless violence and react instead of acting. I say if we allow them to continue to erode the constitution like they have been getting away with, then I suppose we get what we deserve and we will either be serfs or die defending our rights. It really is that simple. It is not "gun violence" it is senseless violence.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...fles-kind/amp/ I understand that statistics mean nothing to liberals but find this intriguing
ban hammers why don't you
|
The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice
No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..
|
|
|
|
08-13-2019, 05:37 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.
What do you mean by "real purpose"? And what do you mean by "the militia"?
Here is a selection of quotes including by those who were involved with the creation of the Second Amendment, and who actually know why they wrote it, what it's purpose is, and what is meant by "the militia." In short, it was meant to be the final, ultimate, resource of self defense, especially against the tyranny of one's own government. And "the militia" was the whole body of the people capable of bearing and using arms:
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/t...is-says-it-all
The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice
No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..
|
The "very language" of the Second Amendment does not refute that "every citizen" who can bear and use arms and is capable of correctly and efficiently using them has a right to any arms that can be borne by one person.
|
|
|
|
08-13-2019, 10:05 PM
|
#6
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
|
I'll ask again
"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?
Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 04:03 AM
|
#7
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot
I'll ask again
"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?
|
If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 04:56 AM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
what's your point?
Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....
"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."
According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."
I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP
|
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 06:39 AM
|
#9
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
what's your point?
Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....
"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."
According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."
I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP
|
My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.
What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 10:13 AM
|
#10
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?answer a question with a question, typical. you have no answer
Why has government been instituted at all? So that a limited government can see to it that our natural rights can be exercised freelyBecause the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
try answering with an answer
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 10:42 AM
|
#11
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,069
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot
try answering with an answer
I'll ask again
"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?
Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"
|
Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint, we enact laws that our elected officials feel are reasonable with the hope that our fellow Americans will obey them.
They do reduce behavior and actions that we find hazardous or objectionable, it is also obvious that laws don't absolutely prevent anything.
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
08-13-2019, 09:59 PM
|
#12
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice
No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..
|
Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.
of course you do, you are a Statist
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 07:03 AM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,124
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot
Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.
of course you do, you are a Statist
|
I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]
|
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 08:36 AM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
|
Supreme Court Justices disagree with each other. So, I guess by your implication, some are smarter and others dumber. Supreme Court Justices have made vile or unconstitutional decisions, such as Dred Scott. The most important quality of a Supreme Court Justice, in my opinion, is fidelity to the Constitution. Justices who rule by various values of justice that come and go with generations, rather than by what the Constitution dictates, are the greatest enemies of the Constitution and our founding system of government.
SCOTUS Justices are not gods. They are fallible, all too human, sometimes vain and full of self-importance, or politically biased. Quoting one may tell more about you than the intelligence or constitutional fidelity of the judge. Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.
|
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 10:29 AM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,124
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.
|
funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,
or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means
|
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 10:33 AM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,124
|
https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB
not sure why 2a supporters think people against assault weapons think we Don't know how to read or do research or see the topic in historical terms...
|
|
|
|
08-14-2019, 10:50 AM
|
#17
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,
or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means
|
read this if you can navigate around the ads
this link actually works unlike yours
https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment
|
The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!
It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 AM.
|
| |