fix
Member
Because 280plus is not alone. There are plenty of others who think like him. Many are right here on this board. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Gun Rights Reality.
- Thread starter Kodiak AK
- Start date
- Status
Because 280plus is not alone. There are plenty of others who think like him. Many are right here on this board. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Gordon Fink
Member
I know.
We are so screwed …
~G. Fink
We are so screwed …
~G. Fink
280PLUS
Member
thank you ks knecktie man,,,
i had a looooong conversation yesterday with a guy who is 85-90,,,
WWII Vet,,,
retired history teacher
gunsmith
and cobbler, still has his shop and works there regularly
2 hours of talk,,, easy
wouldnt you know he pulls out a letter complete with a court case that he had sent to, among other places, the NRA
his contention?
THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN!!
how can he say this??
this 280 guy is gettin' nuttier and nuttier,,,
ok,,,where in the 2nd amendment does it EXPLICITLY STATE "you have the right to own and carry a gun"
fume i think posted the 2nd amendment for us go back and read it.
does it say in explicit words "you have the right to own and carry a gun"?
NO!!
it says "arms"
arms can be anything swords, spears, pitchforks,,,etc
and that the gov't is to pass no laws infringing that right,,,
it's to keep it's hands off,,,
thats what the 2nd says,,,
it does not say "you have the right to carry a gun"
anyhow,,,where DOES your right to carry a gun come from??
the NINTH AMENDMENT
post that one for us Fume
the 9th basically says, in laymans terms that "your rights are too many to list, therefore while we've covered what we think are the most important ones in the bill of rights your rights are not strictly limited to just those"
it also states that all these rights EXISTED BEFORE the putting of the concept of the constitution into words and on paper I.E. THEY HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED
your rights are INFINITE under the 9th,,, INFINITE
He said "do you have the right to go in the woods, stand on your head and eat spaghetti?"
sure you do,,,
according to the 9th, driving is a RIGHT not a privilege as others would have you believe
why then, all the driving legislation
why do you submit to a "test" to determine your capability to drive?
why do you submit to being licensed to do so?
because overall, its better for all of us in the long run,,,in THIS case?
this (the 9th) is why i have the RIGHT to disagree with you all and you all the RIGHT to disagree with me and majority should rule and not just here on this forum
this is why i have the RIGHT to request that, at this juncture in the history of guns and the U.S., we try to limit AS BEST WE CAN guns finding their way into the hands of criminals without my character and integrity coming into question by those who disagree with me
and due to the present almost total lack of gun education and gun familiarity in this country i have the RIGHT to request that everyone be indoctrinated to guns prior to their first purchase
and if enough of us request that right, it should be granted and accepted by the rest
and like ks said, when it goes back to when guns are an everyday thing and soccer moms didnt freak at the mention of a gun, and 10 y.o's dont shoot their 5 y.o. brothers,,,sure i'd suspend all that,,,this is what i mean by measured
this is why we have the RIGHT not to have a cannibal tribe across the river who's idea of us is dinner,,,and snacks later
and why i have the RIGHT (in this country anyhow) to shoot them down if they try
incidentally, on that subject, that particular style of religion is the oldest of all, it is pretty much the "first" religion
christianity helped wipe it out, as well as smallpox, oh, and of course guns and cannons
but to deny that it existed (and may still exist) or ignore it is to deny the history of "humanity",,,the history of humanity is not very humane,,,
matter of fact the 9th gives me the RIGHT to read and own subject matter of this nature without fear of reprisal
don't worry,,,i don't bite,,,
I AM NOT A CANNIBAL NOR DO I PLAY ONE ON TV
SOUND FAMILIAR??
anyhooooo,
he contends the reason the gov't has gained such control over us by legislating us to death is not due to our second amendment rights being eroded, ITS DUE TO OUR 9TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BEING ERODED
and he says that coupled with today's LACK OF INTEGRITY from top to bottom is why we are where we are
i asked him once, OK,,,as i have said many times already here YES the things i support would violate the words of the constitution and i understand there is NO FLEXIBILITY in those words but WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO? no answer,,,
asked him again, a little later,,,his answer after a few moments of thought,,, "nothing,,,it's too late"
and he based that on the lack of integrity and greed for money and power so prevalent today AND the P poor system we call educational,
people are not willing to educate themselves in this country today, not the majority thats for sure, it is looked down upon in many circles, ive experienced it first hand
does a felon have the right to carry a gun to defend himself?,,,under the 9th that is an inviolable right of his,,,the gov't has no legal authority to take that gun from him,,,nor do they have the authority to prevent him from attaining one,,,but they do,,,this is disagreeable to you?
am i for a limitation commensurate to the crime on when a felon gets his rights back,,,absolutely, otherwise there is no inducement for that felon to reform
i have no love for violent offenders though, do you? you want known violent offenders and sexual predators to be able to go right into a store and buy a gun, ever again?
not me,,,
well again time runs short, his main premise to the NRA was that the 2nd amendment CAN NOT STAND ALONE against those who will take your guns away from you, it needs to be tied to the ninth, together they work in your favor,,,
he told the NRA this, he claims they agreed with him, but still theirs as well as your arguments here, nor any of the arguments anywhere on this forum show any reflection of this.
the idea of representatives is you elect them because you agree with their postions but still majority rules,,,
if you can't drum up enough support to remove someone who disagrees with your position and put someone in that is a least SOMEWHAT more moderate on your side then either you're position is not viable to the majority
OR
the education level of the general public on the position you are supporting is weak,
ring any bells for you?
so if you're going to sit back, not participate and whine about the outcome i have no sympathy for you
and, as someone else has already said around here said if we voted en masse on every little thing the more populated areas will have the most say
thats what all that is about
you really want NYC and boston and LA telling you what you can and cannot do with your gun(S)?
not me, thanks,,,
FWIW,,,
the SO and i discussed this last night,,,she's a shooter,,,she got her permit, she'd probably out shoot YOU,,,her dad was a shooter, right off the back porch in "the old days"
bats with a .410,,,try that for a while (savage .410/.22 over and under)
so she says to me " you mean there are people out there who want to put guns in the hands of people who know nothing about guns?
"and there are people who say you shouldn't be required to prove that your not a criminal before you can buy a gun?"
i said, "pop right down the 7-11 and pick up a .44,"
she, "ARE THEY CRAZY?"
i said, "constitutionally THEY ARE CORRECT"
she says, 'Well, I HOPE THERE"S NOT TOO MANY OF THEM!"
so if what i'm saying to you tells you you're "so screwed"
well, then youre right, when it comes to my vote, you are screwed
i'm a gunowner, lifetime as well
besides, i'm not half the hard@$$ she is, and she got friends
i had a looooong conversation yesterday with a guy who is 85-90,,,
WWII Vet,,,
retired history teacher
gunsmith
and cobbler, still has his shop and works there regularly
2 hours of talk,,, easy
wouldnt you know he pulls out a letter complete with a court case that he had sent to, among other places, the NRA
his contention?
THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN!!
how can he say this??
this 280 guy is gettin' nuttier and nuttier,,,
ok,,,where in the 2nd amendment does it EXPLICITLY STATE "you have the right to own and carry a gun"
fume i think posted the 2nd amendment for us go back and read it.
does it say in explicit words "you have the right to own and carry a gun"?
NO!!
it says "arms"
arms can be anything swords, spears, pitchforks,,,etc
and that the gov't is to pass no laws infringing that right,,,
it's to keep it's hands off,,,
thats what the 2nd says,,,
it does not say "you have the right to carry a gun"
anyhow,,,where DOES your right to carry a gun come from??
the NINTH AMENDMENT
post that one for us Fume
the 9th basically says, in laymans terms that "your rights are too many to list, therefore while we've covered what we think are the most important ones in the bill of rights your rights are not strictly limited to just those"
it also states that all these rights EXISTED BEFORE the putting of the concept of the constitution into words and on paper I.E. THEY HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED
your rights are INFINITE under the 9th,,, INFINITE
He said "do you have the right to go in the woods, stand on your head and eat spaghetti?"
sure you do,,,
according to the 9th, driving is a RIGHT not a privilege as others would have you believe
why then, all the driving legislation
why do you submit to a "test" to determine your capability to drive?
why do you submit to being licensed to do so?
because overall, its better for all of us in the long run,,,in THIS case?
this (the 9th) is why i have the RIGHT to disagree with you all and you all the RIGHT to disagree with me and majority should rule and not just here on this forum
this is why i have the RIGHT to request that, at this juncture in the history of guns and the U.S., we try to limit AS BEST WE CAN guns finding their way into the hands of criminals without my character and integrity coming into question by those who disagree with me
and due to the present almost total lack of gun education and gun familiarity in this country i have the RIGHT to request that everyone be indoctrinated to guns prior to their first purchase
and if enough of us request that right, it should be granted and accepted by the rest
and like ks said, when it goes back to when guns are an everyday thing and soccer moms didnt freak at the mention of a gun, and 10 y.o's dont shoot their 5 y.o. brothers,,,sure i'd suspend all that,,,this is what i mean by measured
this is why we have the RIGHT not to have a cannibal tribe across the river who's idea of us is dinner,,,and snacks later
and why i have the RIGHT (in this country anyhow) to shoot them down if they try
incidentally, on that subject, that particular style of religion is the oldest of all, it is pretty much the "first" religion
christianity helped wipe it out, as well as smallpox, oh, and of course guns and cannons
but to deny that it existed (and may still exist) or ignore it is to deny the history of "humanity",,,the history of humanity is not very humane,,,
matter of fact the 9th gives me the RIGHT to read and own subject matter of this nature without fear of reprisal
don't worry,,,i don't bite,,,
I AM NOT A CANNIBAL NOR DO I PLAY ONE ON TV
SOUND FAMILIAR??
anyhooooo,
he contends the reason the gov't has gained such control over us by legislating us to death is not due to our second amendment rights being eroded, ITS DUE TO OUR 9TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BEING ERODED
and he says that coupled with today's LACK OF INTEGRITY from top to bottom is why we are where we are
i asked him once, OK,,,as i have said many times already here YES the things i support would violate the words of the constitution and i understand there is NO FLEXIBILITY in those words but WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO? no answer,,,
asked him again, a little later,,,his answer after a few moments of thought,,, "nothing,,,it's too late"
and he based that on the lack of integrity and greed for money and power so prevalent today AND the P poor system we call educational,
people are not willing to educate themselves in this country today, not the majority thats for sure, it is looked down upon in many circles, ive experienced it first hand
does a felon have the right to carry a gun to defend himself?,,,under the 9th that is an inviolable right of his,,,the gov't has no legal authority to take that gun from him,,,nor do they have the authority to prevent him from attaining one,,,but they do,,,this is disagreeable to you?
am i for a limitation commensurate to the crime on when a felon gets his rights back,,,absolutely, otherwise there is no inducement for that felon to reform
i have no love for violent offenders though, do you? you want known violent offenders and sexual predators to be able to go right into a store and buy a gun, ever again?
not me,,,
well again time runs short, his main premise to the NRA was that the 2nd amendment CAN NOT STAND ALONE against those who will take your guns away from you, it needs to be tied to the ninth, together they work in your favor,,,
he told the NRA this, he claims they agreed with him, but still theirs as well as your arguments here, nor any of the arguments anywhere on this forum show any reflection of this.
the idea of representatives is you elect them because you agree with their postions but still majority rules,,,
if you can't drum up enough support to remove someone who disagrees with your position and put someone in that is a least SOMEWHAT more moderate on your side then either you're position is not viable to the majority
OR
the education level of the general public on the position you are supporting is weak,
ring any bells for you?
so if you're going to sit back, not participate and whine about the outcome i have no sympathy for you
and, as someone else has already said around here said if we voted en masse on every little thing the more populated areas will have the most say
thats what all that is about
you really want NYC and boston and LA telling you what you can and cannot do with your gun(S)?
not me, thanks,,,
FWIW,,,
the SO and i discussed this last night,,,she's a shooter,,,she got her permit, she'd probably out shoot YOU,,,her dad was a shooter, right off the back porch in "the old days"
bats with a .410,,,try that for a while (savage .410/.22 over and under)
so she says to me " you mean there are people out there who want to put guns in the hands of people who know nothing about guns?
"and there are people who say you shouldn't be required to prove that your not a criminal before you can buy a gun?"
i said, "pop right down the 7-11 and pick up a .44,"
she, "ARE THEY CRAZY?"
i said, "constitutionally THEY ARE CORRECT"
she says, 'Well, I HOPE THERE"S NOT TOO MANY OF THEM!"
so if what i'm saying to you tells you you're "so screwed"
well, then youre right, when it comes to my vote, you are screwed
i'm a gunowner, lifetime as well
besides, i'm not half the hard@$$ she is, and she got friends
280PLUS
Member
ps,,,
he said something else that truly warmed my heart,,,
he said, "joe lieberman is an idiot with delusions of grandeur and his political carreer is over."
thank you VERY much sir, i concur,,,
he also mentioned the question of why he ,i, or you cannot carry our guns from state to stae, he used the word federalized
he also mentioned something about 300,000,000 in the chinese military alone and us population being 290,000,000
feel free to refute it, but it cant be too far off
yes,,,we are screwed,,,
he said something else that truly warmed my heart,,,
he said, "joe lieberman is an idiot with delusions of grandeur and his political carreer is over."
thank you VERY much sir, i concur,,,
he also mentioned the question of why he ,i, or you cannot carry our guns from state to stae, he used the word federalized
he also mentioned something about 300,000,000 in the chinese military alone and us population being 290,000,000
feel free to refute it, but it cant be too far off
yes,,,we are screwed,,,
280PLUS
Member
he made one other very relevant remark,,,
"if you obey the Ten Commandmants, everything else takes care of itself"
correction, my error,,,"IF WE ALL obey",,,not just "you" or one person. got it?
i'll rephrase my other statement about accidental shootings outnumbering deliberate ones while i'm at it,,,
you may need to exclude the various wars and the genocide of the native american for that to work,,,
we'll call them "peacetime" or "non-military" shootings.
in other words, more people died and were wounded due to negligence and accidents than were killed or injured in all the famed "ok corral" gunslinger type shootouts combined
"if you obey the Ten Commandmants, everything else takes care of itself"
correction, my error,,,"IF WE ALL obey",,,not just "you" or one person. got it?
i'll rephrase my other statement about accidental shootings outnumbering deliberate ones while i'm at it,,,
you may need to exclude the various wars and the genocide of the native american for that to work,,,
we'll call them "peacetime" or "non-military" shootings.
in other words, more people died and were wounded due to negligence and accidents than were killed or injured in all the famed "ok corral" gunslinger type shootouts combined
fix
Member
Was there a point to any of that or are you just trying to flood us with commas?
If,,,you,,,know,,,what,,,I,,,mean,,,
Next you'll tell us that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right of militia members to roll up their sleeves.
If,,,you,,,know,,,what,,,I,,,mean,,,
Next you'll tell us that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right of militia members to roll up their sleeves.
ksnecktieman
Member
280? I wouild like to keep guns out of the hands of anyone that has ever committed rape, child abuse, or murder. but I can not justify it. We consider ourselves a better than average class of citizens on this forum. That is good, that is pride, and pride is where morality comes from. The problem is that if we can restrict criminals from getting guns, we can restrict anyone from getting guns. Gun control in this country was originally racial, created to keep newly free slaves from having guns. It has changed and grown, and is now a path to the removal of our guns.
You will permit criminals to be banned from having guns. I will permit the excessive tax and licensing on fully auto firearms. The hunters will allow banning pistols. the target shooters will allow them to ban shotguns. The clay target shotgunners will allow them to ban sniper rifles, and pump shotguns. We have ALREADY allowed them to ban "ugly black rifles (assault weapons)", and magazines that hold over ten rounds. The black powder afficionados will permit them to ban cartridge loaded firearms. The .22 lovers will allow them to ban centerfires. The high power lovers will allow them to ban .22s.
Yes, I know people that I do not think should have guns. I do not want to pass a law to take them. Maybe you think that anyone over 50 years old (me) should not have a gun.
What is the next regulation they will propose? Maybe they will decide that anyone that uses a number instead of a name on the internet is unstable and should not have guns? Do you see my point? They want them ALL, from EVERYONE, we need to enlist all the help we can get, from all kinds of freedom loving people, not just gun lovers,
WAKE UP,,,,,, The gun control faction does not want the "other guys" guns, they want YOURS. To them you are "Mr Average", and it is you they want to take guns from.
We can stand together, or we will surely fall seperately.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (except the other guys?)
And the ninth amendment that you wanted a quote of?
THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
Now a tiny bit off topic, Did you hear about the woman that went to the auto parts store and asked for a twenty eight ounce water pump? The counter man figured it out when she handed him the note her husband had written that said "water pump 280Z"
You will permit criminals to be banned from having guns. I will permit the excessive tax and licensing on fully auto firearms. The hunters will allow banning pistols. the target shooters will allow them to ban shotguns. The clay target shotgunners will allow them to ban sniper rifles, and pump shotguns. We have ALREADY allowed them to ban "ugly black rifles (assault weapons)", and magazines that hold over ten rounds. The black powder afficionados will permit them to ban cartridge loaded firearms. The .22 lovers will allow them to ban centerfires. The high power lovers will allow them to ban .22s.
Yes, I know people that I do not think should have guns. I do not want to pass a law to take them. Maybe you think that anyone over 50 years old (me) should not have a gun.
What is the next regulation they will propose? Maybe they will decide that anyone that uses a number instead of a name on the internet is unstable and should not have guns? Do you see my point? They want them ALL, from EVERYONE, we need to enlist all the help we can get, from all kinds of freedom loving people, not just gun lovers,
WAKE UP,,,,,, The gun control faction does not want the "other guys" guns, they want YOURS. To them you are "Mr Average", and it is you they want to take guns from.
We can stand together, or we will surely fall seperately.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (except the other guys?)
And the ninth amendment that you wanted a quote of?
THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
Now a tiny bit off topic, Did you hear about the woman that went to the auto parts store and asked for a twenty eight ounce water pump? The counter man figured it out when she handed him the note her husband had written that said "water pump 280Z"
BHPshooter
Member
WTH? "Arms" includes guns, dude.
Arms includes anything designed to fight with or kill people, and therefore includes anything MEANT to kill people (guns, knives, hatchets swords, etc.) I have a Right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS. KEEP means that I own them, not that the government issues me one. BEAR means CARRY and USE!!!! Are you also going to say that it doesn't give you the right to practice your shooting?
Well, FYI, it does protect shooting. "A WELL REGULATED militia,..." As we know, WELL REGULATED means well trained and well practiced. How are you supposed to be regulated without practice?
WRONG. You do not have infinite rights. You have (or had at the time of the American Revolution) all the rights that can reasonably exercise without infringing the rights of others (run a search for the "non-aggression pact").
It does not say that you have infinite rights, it says that you have more than are listed. Period.
No matter how much you don't like that, your rights do stop somewhere, and reasonably so.
Aside from that, was there a point to those 3 posts?
Wes
Edited to use simpler words.
Gordon Fink
Member
So much confusion, so little time. Bear with me, 280PLUS.…
[W]here in the 2nd amendment does it EXPLICITLY STATE “you have the right to own and carry a gun�
It doesn’t. As necktieman and fumegator pointed out, the Second Amendment states that “the right … to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.†Technically, this means that no one—unlike the First, it’s not just limited to the U.S. Congress—may infringe on your right to own and carry weapons. If the U.S. Congress or the California Legislature or the Hoboken City Council or the Sycamore Lane Homeowners Association enact a ban on black rifles or small handguns or shiny swords or wooden clubs, they have violated the U.S. Constitution.
[T]he 9th [Amendment] basically says, in laymans terms that “your rights are too many to list, therefore while we’ve covered what we think are the most important ones in the bill of rights your rights are not strictly limited to just those.â€
Yes, absolutely. The Ninth Amendment is an additional Constitutional protection on your right to keep and bear arms, your right to drive a car on your (public) roads, your right to use psychoactive substances, your right to own property, your right to conduct private commerce, etc. Too bad that it has been ignored as much, if not more so, than the Second.
[T]his is why we have the RIGHT not to have a cannibal tribe across the river [whose] idea of us is dinner … and snacks later.… incidentally … that particular style of religion is the oldest of all.…
No! You do not have the right to stop cannibals from practicing their “religion.†As long as the participants in their cannibalistic rituals are willing, they have the right to do as they wish. Now, if they try to make you an unwilling participant, then you have every right to stop them.
[D]oes a felon have the right to carry a gun to defend himself?
Yes, once he has completed his sentence. Moreover, he will arm himself anyway, regardless of how many gun-control “laws†we enact upon law-abiding, non-felonious citizens.
[T]he idea of representatives is you elect them because you agree with their postions but still majority rules.…
No. The majority does not necessarily rule in a constitutionally limited democratic republic. The Bill of Rights was adopted to avoid just such a “tyranny of the majority.â€
[T]he SO and i discussed this last night …he’s a shooter.… o she says … “you mean there are people out there who want to put guns in the hands of people who know nothing about guns? [A]nd there are people who say you shouldn’t be required to prove that your not a criminal before you can buy a gun?â€
This is not what we are saying. What we want is to not be punished by “laws†that don’t really affect their ostensible targets (i.e., criminals). A guiding legal principle in free societies is the presumption of innocence. You should not have to prove your innocence in order to exercise a natural, Constitutionally protected right.
[H]e also mentioned the question of why he, i, or you cannot [sic] carry our guns from state to sta[t]e; he used the word federalized.…
Actually, we may. Please review the law.
~G. Fink
[W]here in the 2nd amendment does it EXPLICITLY STATE “you have the right to own and carry a gun�
It doesn’t. As necktieman and fumegator pointed out, the Second Amendment states that “the right … to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.†Technically, this means that no one—unlike the First, it’s not just limited to the U.S. Congress—may infringe on your right to own and carry weapons. If the U.S. Congress or the California Legislature or the Hoboken City Council or the Sycamore Lane Homeowners Association enact a ban on black rifles or small handguns or shiny swords or wooden clubs, they have violated the U.S. Constitution.
[T]he 9th [Amendment] basically says, in laymans terms that “your rights are too many to list, therefore while we’ve covered what we think are the most important ones in the bill of rights your rights are not strictly limited to just those.â€
Yes, absolutely. The Ninth Amendment is an additional Constitutional protection on your right to keep and bear arms, your right to drive a car on your (public) roads, your right to use psychoactive substances, your right to own property, your right to conduct private commerce, etc. Too bad that it has been ignored as much, if not more so, than the Second.
[T]his is why we have the RIGHT not to have a cannibal tribe across the river [whose] idea of us is dinner … and snacks later.… incidentally … that particular style of religion is the oldest of all.…
No! You do not have the right to stop cannibals from practicing their “religion.†As long as the participants in their cannibalistic rituals are willing, they have the right to do as they wish. Now, if they try to make you an unwilling participant, then you have every right to stop them.
[D]oes a felon have the right to carry a gun to defend himself?
Yes, once he has completed his sentence. Moreover, he will arm himself anyway, regardless of how many gun-control “laws†we enact upon law-abiding, non-felonious citizens.
[T]he idea of representatives is you elect them because you agree with their postions but still majority rules.…
No. The majority does not necessarily rule in a constitutionally limited democratic republic. The Bill of Rights was adopted to avoid just such a “tyranny of the majority.â€
[T]he SO and i discussed this last night …
This is not what we are saying. What we want is to not be punished by “laws†that don’t really affect their ostensible targets (i.e., criminals). A guiding legal principle in free societies is the presumption of innocence. You should not have to prove your innocence in order to exercise a natural, Constitutionally protected right.
[H]e also mentioned the question of why he, i, or you cannot [sic] carry our guns from state to sta[t]e; he used the word federalized.…
Actually, we may. Please review the law.
~G. Fink
Last edited:
Unlike politics 280PLUS,using lots of words in long speeches won't cover the fact your wrong. Get rid of all the garbage laws and silly rules. If somebody gets out of control and attempts to hurt or hurts others blow them out of their shoes. Humans are no different than any other animal. Most get along but there are rogues that need culling just like any herd. Stepping on the rights of many in an attempt to control a few is madness.
280PLUS
Member
explicit language,,,
the second amendment does not use the WORD GUN
all it would take is one judge to rule that the word arms DOES NOT INCLUDE GUNS
OR for the legislature to go in there and change the 2nd amendment
can a judge rule "black is white"?
he sure can, and you know what, until you go to a higher court and change his ruling BLACK WILL BE WHITE
you all continue to berate me because "your'e right and i'm wrong"
i believe i may have said, more that once that according to the constitution"youre right i am wrong"
what are some solutions?
i've gotten little or no response to THAT question though i've asked it repeatedly
the difference is you guys look upon some minor difficulties (in my state anyways) of purchasing YOUR FIRST GUN gun as "punishment" for something you didn't do
i look upon it as a reasonable and measured response to an OVERWHELMING problem in this country
ITS NOT PERFECT, WE"VE ESTABLISHED THAT OVER AND OVER
the ninth says your and my rights are too enumerable to list
what now you folks are drawing the line as to where MY rights end under the ninth?
not likely
get this,,,they may have made me jump through a few hoops to get my first HANDGUN but i got my guns
you think i'm going to let them take them away?
execepting my being convicted as a felon they can take them from my cold dead hands
do i oppose any other increase to my limitations as a gun owner?
sure do, and as an active participant in our electorial system (as flawed as it also may be) i hope to deter anyone from imposing more limitations
the Democrats are all espousing extending the AWB, supoosedly George w is for allowing it to lapse
tough choice of who I am going to vote for
and yes, the ninth allows even the cannibal to practice his religious ceremonies as he(or she) sees fit
but it also gives me the right to kill him if he tries to make me a participant
bruce H
thats called anarchy and vigilantiism
and, according to the ninth, a felon should be able to have a gun always
legally the gov't has no right to disarm him or her AT ALL
this is what you want right?
besides,,,all you folks are doing is attacking my "speeches" and looking for loopholes to beat me down with
go ahead,,,under the 9th you have that right
but you have STILL not changed my mind
and i'll use as many commas as i see fit at any moment
i have THAT right too
see, you guys are all about YOUR rights, but as soon as mine come into question it would seem they don't exist to you
you folks arent part of the solution
YOUR'E PART OF THE PROBLEMS that exist in this nation
by not willing to compromise and spouting ME,,,,ME,,,,ME,,,,
and if you'll notice,,,given the number of people who have read this thread so far I ONLY SEE 4 OF YOU ARGUING WITH ME and one of you (i won't say who) has contributed ZERO,
and if i'm recieving no support for my views on this topic from the other board members, i'll venture a guess that some out there who agree with me are keeping quiet because they don't want to be told "we're not your friends anymore and you shouldn't be playing here"
i have the RIGHT to not have some inept gunowner injuring myself and my family
i have the RIGHT to not have some felon offender go into the 7-11 and pick up a .44 cause he found an opportune victim but he needed a gun
and so does the rest of this society
the second amendment does not use the WORD GUN
all it would take is one judge to rule that the word arms DOES NOT INCLUDE GUNS
OR for the legislature to go in there and change the 2nd amendment
can a judge rule "black is white"?
he sure can, and you know what, until you go to a higher court and change his ruling BLACK WILL BE WHITE
you all continue to berate me because "your'e right and i'm wrong"
i believe i may have said, more that once that according to the constitution"youre right i am wrong"
what are some solutions?
i've gotten little or no response to THAT question though i've asked it repeatedly
the difference is you guys look upon some minor difficulties (in my state anyways) of purchasing YOUR FIRST GUN gun as "punishment" for something you didn't do
i look upon it as a reasonable and measured response to an OVERWHELMING problem in this country
ITS NOT PERFECT, WE"VE ESTABLISHED THAT OVER AND OVER
the ninth says your and my rights are too enumerable to list
what now you folks are drawing the line as to where MY rights end under the ninth?
not likely
get this,,,they may have made me jump through a few hoops to get my first HANDGUN but i got my guns
you think i'm going to let them take them away?
execepting my being convicted as a felon they can take them from my cold dead hands
do i oppose any other increase to my limitations as a gun owner?
sure do, and as an active participant in our electorial system (as flawed as it also may be) i hope to deter anyone from imposing more limitations
the Democrats are all espousing extending the AWB, supoosedly George w is for allowing it to lapse
tough choice of who I am going to vote for
and yes, the ninth allows even the cannibal to practice his religious ceremonies as he(or she) sees fit
but it also gives me the right to kill him if he tries to make me a participant
bruce H
thats called anarchy and vigilantiism
and, according to the ninth, a felon should be able to have a gun always
legally the gov't has no right to disarm him or her AT ALL
this is what you want right?
besides,,,all you folks are doing is attacking my "speeches" and looking for loopholes to beat me down with
go ahead,,,under the 9th you have that right
but you have STILL not changed my mind
and i'll use as many commas as i see fit at any moment
i have THAT right too
see, you guys are all about YOUR rights, but as soon as mine come into question it would seem they don't exist to you
you folks arent part of the solution
YOUR'E PART OF THE PROBLEMS that exist in this nation
by not willing to compromise and spouting ME,,,,ME,,,,ME,,,,
and if you'll notice,,,given the number of people who have read this thread so far I ONLY SEE 4 OF YOU ARGUING WITH ME and one of you (i won't say who) has contributed ZERO,
and if i'm recieving no support for my views on this topic from the other board members, i'll venture a guess that some out there who agree with me are keeping quiet because they don't want to be told "we're not your friends anymore and you shouldn't be playing here"
i have the RIGHT to not have some inept gunowner injuring myself and my family
i have the RIGHT to not have some felon offender go into the 7-11 and pick up a .44 cause he found an opportune victim but he needed a gun
and so does the rest of this society
fix
Member
Well it's safe to assume you're referring to me here. From your point of view, I can understand that you may feel that I've contributed "ZERO". Honestly, I really do not know what to say. You seem like a reasonable guy, but I think you have way WAY too much confidence in the federal government. If you honestly believe that the anti-gun movement (the "sensible laws" crowd included) is truly looking out for everyone's safety and not blatantly attempting to disarm them for political purposes, then I suggest you rethink your position. There are very few sensible gun laws that can't be twisted (much like your hypothetical 2nd Amendment interpretation) in order to be used against us. As far as I'm concerned, if you're part of the "sensible gun laws" crowd, you are an anti, because the same folks preaching this in Washington are the one's ramming the AWB down our throats. IMO you're no different from all the hunters who sit quietly and ignore the AWB because it doesn't apply to their "d-yeer r-eye-fuh". Divide and conquer. Consider yourself divided. Prepare to be conquered.
ksnecktieman
Member
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If you are going to redefine "arms" for us, will you also define "is" for Mr Klinton?
Educate the children in school about gun safety, not the people that go out to buy a gun. Educate everyone.
Lock the criminals in prison and keep them there, or terminate them. Put career criminals out of business.
If you give the government the power to tax or license guns or rights, you give them the power to BAN them. Either by restrictions that no one can comply with, or by making it so expensive that no one can.
Those are just my opinions, and suggestions. Since you favor gun control I am sure nothing anyone here can say about it will change your mind. We will have to just agree to disagree.
If you are going to redefine "arms" for us, will you also define "is" for Mr Klinton?
Educate the children in school about gun safety, not the people that go out to buy a gun. Educate everyone.
Lock the criminals in prison and keep them there, or terminate them. Put career criminals out of business.
If you give the government the power to tax or license guns or rights, you give them the power to BAN them. Either by restrictions that no one can comply with, or by making it so expensive that no one can.
Those are just my opinions, and suggestions. Since you favor gun control I am sure nothing anyone here can say about it will change your mind. We will have to just agree to disagree.
280PLUS
Member
FWIW,,,i'm 46/47
not that it should matter but for the record,,,
and just for giggles the old guy has one of the old .38 police specials in his pocket that so many love around here
complete with some solid brass wadcutter looking rounds that had yiddish writing around the primer
hypothetical, yes, but also quite possible
has the supreme court ruled on the definition of the word "arms"? in regards to the second amendment?
if not, that is its weakest "link" if you will
all them politicians got to do is take that to the courts and have them rule it to not include the word "GUN" in the definition of arms and yes
once again i agree with you,,,we are all screwed
BUT there IS a supreme court ruling to clarify the words of the ninth and in essence the supreme court says "YOUR RIGHTS ARE INFINITE"
or there are so many of them it is IMPOSSIBLE to list them all
so, do i have the right to drag a poor 11yo girl off and kill her?
unbelievably, yes, but i must be willing to face the consequences
because society has the right, by majority rule, to punish me for that crime
because it is for the better of the whole of society
do i have the right to go to fla, stalk the bastard and blow his brains out?
yes i do, but i'm not willing to face the consequences
that would be anarchist and vigilante
why does the NRA ignore the ninth
because it is a double edged sword
yes you have the right to own a gun under the ninth, but under the ninth if the majority of the VOTING public wants to exercise their right to put limitations on that right under the ninth they may do so
hence the reason you should be totally involved in getting everyone your in contact with out to vote and work hard to place and keep in office those who are CLOSEST to thinking the same way you are
not perfect, I KNOW
so in essence what he is saying, is that all you 2nd amendment folk are barking but YA GOT THE WRONG TREE!!
if you shift your focus to the ninth WHERE IT SHOULD BE you will be able to achieve much more, but
BIG BUT,,,
YOURE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH COMPROMISE
and i don't hear too much around here,,,
not that it should matter but for the record,,,
and just for giggles the old guy has one of the old .38 police specials in his pocket that so many love around here
complete with some solid brass wadcutter looking rounds that had yiddish writing around the primer
hypothetical, yes, but also quite possible
has the supreme court ruled on the definition of the word "arms"? in regards to the second amendment?
if not, that is its weakest "link" if you will
all them politicians got to do is take that to the courts and have them rule it to not include the word "GUN" in the definition of arms and yes
once again i agree with you,,,we are all screwed
BUT there IS a supreme court ruling to clarify the words of the ninth and in essence the supreme court says "YOUR RIGHTS ARE INFINITE"
or there are so many of them it is IMPOSSIBLE to list them all
so, do i have the right to drag a poor 11yo girl off and kill her?
unbelievably, yes, but i must be willing to face the consequences
because society has the right, by majority rule, to punish me for that crime
because it is for the better of the whole of society
do i have the right to go to fla, stalk the bastard and blow his brains out?
yes i do, but i'm not willing to face the consequences
that would be anarchist and vigilante
why does the NRA ignore the ninth
because it is a double edged sword
yes you have the right to own a gun under the ninth, but under the ninth if the majority of the VOTING public wants to exercise their right to put limitations on that right under the ninth they may do so
hence the reason you should be totally involved in getting everyone your in contact with out to vote and work hard to place and keep in office those who are CLOSEST to thinking the same way you are
not perfect, I KNOW
so in essence what he is saying, is that all you 2nd amendment folk are barking but YA GOT THE WRONG TREE!!
if you shift your focus to the ninth WHERE IT SHOULD BE you will be able to achieve much more, but
BIG BUT,,,
YOURE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH COMPROMISE
and i don't hear too much around here,,,
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I'm gonna compromise. With reality: This horse smells too much like dead.
Art
Art
- Status
