Lars Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 "The Right of The People" means just that...the right of the people if the liberal elite interpreted the second amendment by the same standards as they do the rest of the Bill of Rights, they would have to argue that gun ownership is mandatory...after all, it does say "The Right of the People" and I'm proud to be one of the "People" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 if the liberal elite interpreted the second amendment by the same standards as they do the rest of the Bill of Rights, they would have to argue that gun ownership is mandatory...after all, it does say "The Right of the People" What the hell is this supposed to mean? You dont choose to address my point at all. Laws become outdated and times change. There was a time when slavery existed within the law and women weren't allowed to vote. The 2nd amendment existed to give the people the right to act as a milita and defend the state. It says it right in the amendment! Why do you 2nd amendment supporters simply choose to ignore this fact? Nowhere does it say "to defend against neighbors" or "to rob a bank" or "to facilitate schoolyard shootings" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 thats a bullshit arguement. slavery and the women's vote were never part of the bill of rights. and those issues have been dealt with because they were moral issues. my right to own a particular tool, whether i use it to hunt for food, protect my family, or target shoot for fun, has nothing to do with oppresion or morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 I didn't say they were part of the bill of rights, smart guy. slavery was abolished and the woman's right to vote were both "granted" with constitutional amendments. Why do you think we have the amendment system? Yeah, it's to update our constitution as we see fit. Address my argument, rather than skirting it please. The 2nd amendment directly speaks to the right to bear arms for the maintenance of a militia to protect the state. You can't deny that it says that so you come up with your crap arguments about how it's a "tool" you have the right to own. If you can own a gun why can't I own a rocket launcher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 The 2nd amendment directly speaks to the right of the people to bear arms exactly If you can own a gun why can't I own a rocket launcher? because they ruin those little paper targets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 (edited) Next time try... "The 2nd amendment directly speaks to the right to bear arms for the maintenance of a militia to protect the state " Misquoting...a powerful argument indeed. You guys prove my points for me. You have no argument and you know it. It's bad law. Just like prohibition didn't work and we needed to pass another amendment to repeal it, it's time to get rid of the 2nd. It's outdated and ridiculous. Our country suffers more handgun violence than the rest of the civilized world combined. Australia's violent crime rate(and esp. murder rate) has plummeted since guns were outlawed. As Wesley Clark said (paraphrased) "if you like guns, join the army, we've got them". Another perfectly reasonable thing to do is move to a 2nd or 3rd world country. You'll find plenty of other folks interested in arming themselves and shooting stuff. Edited April 26, 2004 by JoshK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Australia's violent crime rate(and esp. murder rate) has plummeted since guns were outlawed. thats not true. Australia has had an increase in violent crime (including murder) since adopting stricter gun controls... Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Assaults are up 8.6 percent. Armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Excuse me, I said violent crime and I should have specified deaths due to handguns. "Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase." What an idiotic stance. Clearly more gun deaths is a good price to pay to lower overall violent crime rates by .8%. Also, what kind of crap source is this?? WorldNetDaily? HAHAHAH. Check out the home page....it's a rightwing propoganda site, man. Every ad on the front page is for some sort of right wing book. Try citing real facts. Better yet, face the fact that I have presented real arguments and you have skirted every one with typical regurgitated NRA crap. You guys can fight this all you want, but slowly and surely our society is getting smarter. We're getting sick of the NRA and it's crap, and you're fighting a losing battle. It may not be next year, or 10 years from now, but we'll have guns outlawed or severly restricted sooner or later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Oh, and for those you wondering earlier if Britney Spears was a republican or not, she is on the NRA's blacklist for being "anti-gun", just as the NEA (National Education Association), NAACP, NOW (national organization of women), AFL-CIO, the league of women voters, AARP (american association of retired persons). Clearly these are all terrorist liberal communist extremist organizations looking to infringe on our civil rights! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 so you resort to name calling? i should have seen that coming. once again, ignore the facts and call it right-wing if it doesnt fit into your view of how things should be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Where is the namecalling? Sorry, I called you smart guy, that was rather wiseass, I apologize. if you honestly think that site you posted from is a legitimate news source, I can't help you there. Slowly but surely the republican party is going to begin distancing themselves from the NRA. The republican party gets a good deal of it's support from suburban upper middle class families. Do you really think the majority of these people support loose gun laws? Nope, not at all. I may not agree with most republicans, but they aren't dumb. They read the same polls everybody else does and they know that sooner or later buckling under to the NRA is going to cost them more than it gains them. People are sick of worrying about sending their children to school for fear of a schoolyard shooting, or any other number of horrible things that have happened lately involving guns. The wheels of the machine are slowly turning. I was happy to see that the senate recently voted down immunity for gun manufactuers and rouge dealers. It was helped along by fairly strong republican support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 who cares how she votes? i'd hit it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 who cares how she votes? i'd hit it Hell yeah, so would I. Looks like you've conceded the argument to me. Anyway, It's time for bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 so you resort to name calling? i should have seen that coming. once again, ignore the facts and call it right-wing if it doesnt fit into your view of how things should be... What, and your use of the phrase "liberal elite" was a polite honorific? Pot, kettle, you know the drill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 You guys can fight this all you want, but slowly and surely our society is getting smarter. We're getting sick of the NRA and it's crap, and you're fighting a losing battle. It may not be next year, or 10 years from now, but we'll have guns outlawed or severly restricted sooner or later. It's nice to know that such a large segment of society has chosen you as their spokesman. However, I would suggest that you consider the following: NRA membership numbers are on the rise, the number of concealed-weapons-permit applications are increasing (especially by women), and the NRA is considered the most effective lobbying group on the Hill (which means they have good funding, which means that a lot of people believe in what NRA is doing so they give money). Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Australia's violent crime rate(and esp. murder rate) has plummeted since guns were outlawed. As Wesley Clark said (paraphrased) "if you like guns, join the army, we've got them". First, please cite a source for your "fact"; you have castigated several people with your childish rants about no source for facts quoted. Second, Clark's statement is EXACTLY what the Framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid: Having all the power in the hands of governmental police forces and an unarmed populace. Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 i think i'd rather see more hot republican babes than have this discussion go onandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandononandonandonandonandonandonandonandonand onandonandon..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Ask and ye shall receive: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jja Posted April 26, 2004 Author Share Posted April 26, 2004 Ask and ye shall receive: Thanks Will, I've been slacking lately in keeping this thread at least tangentially on topic. I see you found the same website I did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Second, Clark's statement is EXACTLY what the Framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid: Having all the power in the hands of governmental police forces and an unarmed populace. Once again, after reprimanding me for thinking I know what the framers of the constitution intended, do you do the very same thing. Give it up and address my point. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" Please tell me how you and your NRA buddies represent a well regulated militia and how you provide any security for the state? You don't. And don't give me the bullshit about the framers intended for an armed populace to offset the power of a national military. Do you honestly think any sort of armed populace is going to even come close to offsetting what the U.S. Military is there for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 JoshK - I know you'll go do some little victory dance thinking you've beaten me, but I don't care. I'm done with you, dude. It seems you are less interested in actually having a proper debate and more focused on beating the shit out of those who don't agree with you and trying to ram your opinion down my throat as fact. Well, I signed off on people like you long ago (that includes being a person like you, which I was). Believe what you will, you certainly seem passionate enough. Good bye. Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Ha! It's no longer a debate but my attempt to "ram stuff down your throat" when I make valid points and you cannot present a worthwhile counter-argument? I'm not sure how you were a "person like me" considering you dont know a bit about me. Considering the level of bitterness and loathe towards the world you know posess, I would be curious what you once were like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snugtop Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 It seems you are less interested in actually having a proper debate and more focused on beating the shit out of those who don't agree with you and trying to ram your opinion down my throat as fact. No way, did Greg just bail from the debate because it got too ugly? This from a guy who, two pages back, wrote, "I'd have several JHPs bouncing around in your chest cavity before you could get that fucker loaded." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Snugtop, it's really just Greg's laundry day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.