Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:That's not what the second amendment says.
Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".
Did you see "can of soup" in your copy of the Constitution?
(I did).
Moderator: Community Team
Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:That's not what the second amendment says.
Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".
Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:That's not what the second amendment says.
Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".
Juan_Bottom wrote:Why is it senseless?
Phatscotty wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Why is it senseless?
Because it will only affect the people who follow the law. Someone who wants to get a gun for the purpose of murdering someone already takes the "following the law part" out of the equation. And I wish you did pull that 90% source, because that's where the other questions are, where 60-something % of people agree it won't do anything to stop criminals/senseless.
Just curious, I know you aren't one of the people who said Obama is the same as Romney, but do you think Romney would be going as far as Obama is, which is basically gun control obsession?
Metro Transit officials confirm there is a major investigation underway at its light rail Hiawatha maintenance shop. 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has learned the investigation started in December and is still in progress. Metro Transit says it does involve staff at the maintenance facility, but would not specify which employees were under investigation. Sources tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS it does involve managers as well as hourly employees. Those same sources say part of the allegations that lead to the investigation include the exchange of pills and firearms for coveted overtime shifts at the maintenance facility.
Metro Transit officials told us they have hired an outside agency to conduct the investigation and that Metro Transit management takes the investigation and allegations "very seriously." Sources tell 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Metro Transit has hired an outside law firm to conduct the investigation and the probe should be concluded within the next few weeks. Metro Transit officials would not want to talk about disciplinary action, because it involves personnel issues. But a Metro Transit spokesperson told us there have not been any terminations and disciplinary measures handed out "just yet."
There are 63 employees at the Metro Transit maintenance facility. Sixty-one of those employees are represented by unions and two workers are non-union. Light rail has an annual budget of roughly $30 million.
Phatscotty wrote:we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want.
I'll grab the nukes -- you get the kinetic bomb to come in from space. I have the feeling this is the beginning of a great thing!
BMO
Phatscotty wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want.
I'll grab the nukes -- you get the kinetic bomb to come in from space. I have the feeling this is the beginning of a great thing!
BMO
as extreme as your point is (the most extreme possible) I will step out on a limb and say that there probably won't be a time when we need to arm ourselves with nukes. But, much more realistically (than nukes anyways), if, say, a hardcore Conservative Gov't who delayed all elections decided to crack down on, say...Liberals, and they were using tanks against that segment/"enemy" in a civil war, then yes, you have the right to fight back with a tank, or whatever you can find most likely.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:That's not what the second amendment says.
Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".
I'm talking about the whole thing, because wackos without perspective like to lie and say that the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" so they have the right to own whatever weapon they want. But immediately before that, it says "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state." PS is taking the words wholly out of context. It's the context of the words that I'm talking about, because they matter.
So yeah, Congress does have the authority to "infringe" upon that "right" of the individual owning assault rifles, so long as they don't try to keep state's from controlling their own armories. And if you're not a part of a well-regulated militia, then it's pretty easy to argue that you're acting outside of the framer's intentions. They were trying to protect the right of individual states to defend themselves against a tyrannical central government, not give the individual the authority to own a battleship.
Juan_Bottom wrote:They bought their guns illegally in the US with the gun-show loophole, as do the drug cartels.
donelladan wrote:I agree with you Phatscotty. If you ever need to fight your government you will need tank, and probably plane too.
But you know what? You don't and will never have them.
So the argument saying that you need weapon to be able to fight against your government in case your government decide to become a tyranny is just total bullshit. You will never have the same weapon than them.
Be realistic assume the comparison with developed country, and understand that LESS WEAPON = LESS DEAD (by them at least). It is simple logic but believe it please it works pretty well !
donelladan wrote:I agree with you Phatscotty. If you ever need to fight your government you will need tank, and probably plane too.
But you know what? You don't and will never have them.
So the argument saying that you need weapon to be able to fight against your government in case your government decide to become a tyranny is just total bullshit. You will never have the same weapon than them.
Be realistic assume the comparison with developed country, and understand that LESS WEAPON = LESS DEAD (by them at least). It is simple logic but believe it please it works pretty well !
Nobunaga wrote:donelladan wrote:I agree with you Phatscotty. If you ever need to fight your government you will need tank, and probably plane too.
But you know what? You don't and will never have them.
So the argument saying that you need weapon to be able to fight against your government in case your government decide to become a tyranny is just total bullshit. You will never have the same weapon than them.
Be realistic assume the comparison with developed country, and understand that LESS WEAPON = LESS DEAD (by them at least). It is simple logic but believe it please it works pretty well !
Germany must certainly be a paradise.
If you spent any time here in the US you would come to realize that our high death rates are concentrated in the poor sections of large cities, with the very occasional newsworthy slaughter. The vast majority of gun deaths are committed by the poor and uneducated against the poor and uneducated, sometimes caught up in a culture that actually promotes such activity.
As regards tyranny, it's incremental, too much so for the average reality-TV watching goombah to notice... but it gains ground just about every day.
I agree however that fighting the armies of the united states would be suicide... Until half of them joined up with you (huge support for my way of thinking in the US military).
Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I've heard a lot of burglars use armor-plated deer as a distraction.
I think armor piercing bullets would also help you against supervillains, like the Juggernaut.
Oh shit, what am I saying? Armor-piercing bullets wouldn't work against the Juggernaut!
Then obviously uranium-depleted bullets must be available on the free market. Juggernaut's gonna get bitched slapped.
INCOMING BACKYARD ENRICHMENT FUCKERRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZ!
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I've heard a lot of burglars use armor-plated deer as a distraction.
I think armor piercing bullets would also help you against supervillains, like the Juggernaut.
Oh shit, what am I saying? Armor-piercing bullets wouldn't work against the Juggernaut!
Then obviously uranium-depleted bullets must be available on the free market. Juggernaut's gonna get bitched slapped.
Phatscotty wrote:we do have the right to own whatever weapons we want. I didn't take anything out of context. Shall not be infringed is shall not be infringed.
Nobunaga wrote:Germany must certainly be a paradise.
If you spent any time here in the US you would come to realize that our high death rates are concentrated in the poor sections of large cities, with the very occasional newsworthy slaughter. The vast majority of gun deaths are committed by the poor and uneducated against the poor and uneducated, sometimes caught up in a culture that actually promotes such activity.
As regards tyranny, it's incremental, too much so for the average reality-TV watching goombah to notice... but it gains ground just about every day.
I agree however that fighting the armies of the united states would be suicide... Until half of them joined up with you (huge support for my way of thinking in the US military).
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:That's not what the second amendment says.
Unless I don't understand what you're referring to, it really does say "shall not be infringed".
welcome back Woodruff!
Phatscotty wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Why is it senseless?
Because it will only affect the people who follow the law.
Phatscotty wrote:
This Congress has a 6% approval rating. I don't want them opening my can of soup, much less tinkering with the 2nd amendment
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Why is it senseless?
Because it will only affect the people who follow the law.
Surely you recognize that this just isn't true, don't you? Why is it that you're so willing to wallow in lies?
The fact of the matter is that CURRENTLY, individuals who should not be able to legally purchase weapons are able to EASILY purchase weapons legally.
It is not senseless to try to make this more difficult for them, or to at least force them into illegal purchases.
If you'd just be honest about the discussion instead of, as usual, trying to twist your bullshit like you're a birthday party clown and it's some sort of a balloon-animal carnival act, people might respect you a bit more.
ooge wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
This Congress has a 6% approval rating. I don't want them opening my can of soup, much less tinkering with the 2nd amendment
90% of the public supports the legislation,the legislation does not pass,this will result in a 6% approval ratings. The noisy minority voices win again.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS, Dukasaur