50 replies to this topic

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Mind you, there is a few God given rules that pre-date the Bill of Rights - Thou shant kill/murder being one. Another, from a chap called Jesus being "if your enemy strikes your cheek, turn your head and offer your other cheek".
I think that sort of says "owning a device designed solely to destroy lives isn't au fait with the All Mighty".

[OverSword]

ninjadude, on 05 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Our creator did not endow us with the right to bear arms.

Strongly disagree.  Show me one culture from the begining of time to the present that hasn't born arms.

[OverSword]

The Silver Thong, on 05 January 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Are you really going to compare a President to a guy in a 7-11 making a grab for beer to deffend your point.

Is the life of your prime ministers worth more than yours?  Even to you?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

OverSword, on 07 January 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Strongly disagree.  Show me one culture from the begining of time to the present that hasn't born arms.

just because we'vw done it, doesn't mean God likes it.
swords into plowshares and all that.

[AsteroidX]

Anti gun agitators dont exist in my neck of the woods

[ninjadude]

Eonwe, on 07 January 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure I clarified that we have the right to bear arms as given to us by our creator.

saying it does not make it so. That does not exist in the constitution.

Quote

Yes, the model for implementing change if the voting system - but what is the voting system fails? What then?

that has failed you sometime in recent memory in the US?

Quote

The Bill of Rights doesn't say we should overthrow our government, but it gives us a means to defend ourselves from our government - the second amendment.

it says no such thing.

Quote

Yes, the Constitution is changeable - but we should be prudent enough to value whether said changes are beneficial or intended to be self-destructive of the document itself purposely, throwing away its meaning and altering its significance through bad amendments.

which is why amendments are voted upon.

Quote

The century is irrelevant. The decade is irrelevant.

it is relevant. There is no longer a need for militias.

Quote

I'm not one to slander - I'm more adapt to be cheerfully condescending. You implying I'm brainwashed because I follow the advice of the people who founded this country .

I didn't call someone unAmerican. You did. And you are brainwashed for ONLY believing in that advice and that it is unchangingly relevant in the 21st century. But it's a typical conservative bent.

[ninjadude]

AsteroidX, on 07 January 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

Anti gun agitators dont exist in my neck of the woods

Let me guess. A rural area or south of the mason-dixon line?

[Kafkaesque]

ninjadude, on 08 January 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

saying it does not make it so. That does not exist in the constitution.



that has failed you sometime in recent memory in the US?



it says no such thing.



which is why amendments are voted upon.



it is relevant. There is no longer a need for militias.



I didn't call someone unAmerican. You did. And you are brainwashed for ONLY believing in that advice and that it is unchangingly relevant in the 21st century. But it's a typical conservative bent.

The Bill of Rights, eh?

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789

No, the second amendment says no such thing - but its creators have argued for its purpose and made it clear its an anti-tyrannical deterrent.

If the second amendment gives us militias and guns, then why? Why would Alexander Hamilton write the following?:

"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?"

You could say Hamilton wanted the militia to act as a national guard.

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force."

However, he continues:

"It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power."

His intention was the militia, aka the people, to remain armed to be safeguarded against tyranny.

"But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."


^ That is an expressed warning against tyranny.

Hamilton's view was those who want Americans unarmed want them enslaved.

The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 required that every male have a gun; demonstrating the need for every citizen to be armed to prevent tyranny. Again, it doesn't matter what technology our government has, every person who owns a gun is apart of the militia.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, 1805

I can't reason with you, so I'll just quote George Washington to validate my point.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"  - George Washington

For your information, I'm not conservative in many cases except in cases of gun stupidity.

I'm usually independent with libertarian leanings.

Edited by Eonwe, 08 January 2013 - 01:01 AM.

[and then]

ninjadude, on 08 January 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

Let me guess. A rural area or south of the mason-dixon line?

The last time I glanced at a map, Connecticut is well north of there.  But by all means let's hear your opinion of those less fortunate who dwell outside the land of Lincoln.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Are more gun laws the answer? how many gun laws were broken in conn. shooting? did they make a difference? they would have if they arrested the dumb-ass. it would have given the prosecutor more to charge him with that is it. no gun law ever saved a victim. how many criminals think " I'm gonna shoot him! uh-oh better not that would be against several laws." gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens. you restrict the use of capital punishment and wonder why you have a rise in capital crimes? really? is someone out of touch with reality?

[Gummug]

Wearer of Hats, on 07 January 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Mind you, there is a few God given rules that pre-date the Bill of Rights - Thou shant kill/murder being one. Another, from a chap called Jesus being "if your enemy strikes your cheek, turn your head and offer your other cheek".
I think that sort of says "owning a device designed solely to destroy lives isn't au fait with the All Mighty".

I also remember that at one point he told those who didn't have a sword to go out and buy one.

[and then]

Gummug, on 08 January 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

I also remember that at one point he told those who didn't have a sword to go out and buy one.

Quite true!  He also mentioned burglars and thieves in a most unflattering way.

[Hasina]

Have y'all noticed both sides of the discussion have been labeled quite unflattering? Anti-gun 'propagandists', a 'culture of guns and violence', etc and so forth.

[OverSword]

I guess we could label each other psychos and wussies.

[ninjadude]

Eonwe, on 08 January 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

No, the second amendment says no such thing - but its creators have argued for its purpose and made it clear its an anti-tyrannical deterrent.

and yet they didn't actually put that language in the constitution when they had the chance. Kind of defeats your argument.