RE: A new ACW.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:02:06 PM)

quote:


I agree that guy would have relinguished his health if he walked into my house in that manner.
but there are states with retreat laws also which my hypothetical guest would have resided in


Understood.

I live in Florida, so gave an example that I would be familiar with.
I also mentioned Texas due to the high profile incident that I referenced.

Some states require "retreat", others do not.
YMMV based on where you reside.




barkman44 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:05:16 PM)

Well said but you forget they were a bunch of old white slave owning fuddie duddies who could not have forseen the
"kinder gentler"nation we live in now.
you know the one that created the 2 teens that broke into a elderly couples home a few years back.
they tied them up in kitchen chairs,turned them so they were facing each other then cut their throats and then sat drinking a 6 pack of beer while the couple watched each other die.
of course the couple were unarmed
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Those who say the second amendment is about "hunting" show their ignorance of our bill of rights.

George Mason, father of the American Bill of Rights:
1. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
2. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Patrick Henry:
1. "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
2. "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And of course from the man himself--GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"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, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Okay you people who say the founders did not intend that everyone have a gun, how the hell do you get around the above quotes???




vonRocko -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:20:27 PM)

Wow, They were wise men.
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Those who say the second amendment is about "hunting" show their ignorance of our bill of rights.

George Mason, father of the American Bill of Rights:
1. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
2. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Patrick Henry:
1. "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
2. "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And of course from the man himself--GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"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, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Okay you people who say the founders did not intend that everyone have a gun, how the hell do you get around the above quotes???




parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:21:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

Well said but you forget they were a bunch of old white slave owning fuddie duddies who could not have forseen the
"kinder gentler"nation we live in now.
you know the one that created the 2 teens that broke into a elderly couples home a few years back.
they tied them up in kitchen chairs,turned them so they were facing each other then cut their throats and then sat drinking a 6 pack of beer while the couple watched each other die.
of course the couple were unarmed
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Those who say the second amendment is about "hunting" show their ignorance of our bill of rights.

George Mason, father of the American Bill of Rights:
1. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
2. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Patrick Henry:
1. "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
2. "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And of course from the man himself--GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"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, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Okay you people who say the founders did not intend that everyone have a gun, how the hell do you get around the above quotes???




In the strange event that you are serious, the old slave owners argument is BS. They did create a system that allowed the eventual equal rights of everyone. Plus, using that argument really has nothing at all to do with the second amendment.

If you truly believe that because many founders owned slaves then the second amendment is moot, what would you say if others decided to do away(or amend) the following:

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

OR:


Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

So? Should we do away with those two rights also??



barkman44 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:33:29 PM)

was using wry humor sorry if you miss understood forget to use a smiley face or whatever read one of my early post about stopping the use of the slave owner c**p
I guess what i meant was that the statement that the prescense of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference applies to acts other than governmental as well



MrRoadrunner -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:38:54 PM)

Our "rights" are not given to us by our government.
The "Bill of Rights" is there to protect us "from" our government if it abuses the power we give it.
The Second Amendment right to bear arms is there as the instrument to help us protect ourselves from our government.

Bringing up "slavery" and "slave owning founders" is a canard of the highest order. One, slavery was legal at that time. And, two, The Constitution was specifically set up using the 3/5ths compromise to not allow southern slave owning states to be unequally represented in the House of Representatives. Which led to the eventual end of slavery, instead to the reinforcement of it's ideals.
Diverting the arguments or belittling the founders cannot be an excuse to not understand the intent or minimize the intent. That is a weak argument at it's best. Specious at it's worst.

The current "geniuses of smart" could not hold a candle to the enlightened intellect of the founding fathers.

The smaller the government, the bigger the people. The bigger the government and we become the "sheepeople".

RR



barkman44 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:47:50 PM)

I guess i was misinterpreted the founders in my opinion were some of the greatest men in history,they formed a country which was based on freedom and liberty
and which was protected by a constitution which is not a"living document"as some liberals state
I guess if they had their way we'd have a constitution like s.africa which was created using facebook!!!



barkman44 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 8:56:05 PM)

I guess no one read this!this was in responce to heyhellowhatsnew ie post 37
quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

not prophets?at the ratification of the constitution patrick henry was asked by the governor of virginia if virginia could leave the union once it was formed
Henry said you certainly could but be warned that some future president may invade your country and burn down your homes.
sounds pretty prophetic given what happened 71 years later!
also people need to remember that the constitution does'nt grant us rights it clarifies the rights we are endowed with naturally as human beings
and that which the government CANNOT interfere with or infringe!
the founders may not have been gods but i wish our current politicions had more of their intelligence and backbone{and please stop with the slave owner c**p that criticism is interposing our beliefs on a culture of 200 years ago and is stupid and a waste of time.


I never got the deification or fetishizing of our "founding fathers". They were old slave owners who believed in things like the best way to solve a dispute was the duel with handguns and other outdated nonsensical beliefs and genociding Native Americans

They were just humans that lived centuries ago. Not Gods. Not prophets.

At least they had the common sense to know that our constitution is something meant to be evolved, because they had to foresight to know that human thought evolved and things change. Or poor whites, women and people like me would never be able to vote. That kinda thing.

As I said, i'm very very very socialist and I don't think that the second amendment should be repealed. And it won't. There is no gestapo that will take your gun away. I promise you this. This is never going to happen. No one will come and take anyone's gun away ever.

After all, the NRA and other lobbyists have bought our representatives pretty well so that any idea of a true gun control solution that will help lessen the deaths of our children and teens will never happen.

Welcome to the government. Highest bidder gets what they want. More of a reason for ALL of us to band together against the wealthy elite.






parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 9:37:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

was using wry humor sorry if you miss understood forget to use a smiley face or whatever read one of my early post about stopping the use of the slave owner c**p
I guess what i meant was that the statement that the prescense of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference applies to acts other than governmental as well


Please forgive my failure to recognize your sarcasm. I usually get in trouble when I am sarcastic.
[;)]

But I have had the argument about "white slave owning guys" thrown in my face recently. Of course when I retorted that we should ban any mention of Lincoln in all history books because he said, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”, my opponent sputtered, called me a traitor and then he had a stroke.[:D]



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 9:39:09 PM)

quote:

The current "geniuses of smart" could not hold a candle to the enlightened intellect of the founding fathers.

The smaller the government, the bigger the people. The bigger the government and we become the "sheepeople".

RR


BEEP BEEP. Amen, I long for smaller government. But then liberals would have nothing to worship, would they?



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 9:49:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

The current "geniuses of smart" could not hold a candle to the enlightened intellect of the founding fathers.

The smaller the government, the bigger the people. The bigger the government and we become the "sheepeople".

RR


BEEP BEEP. Amen, I long for smaller government. But then liberals would have nothing to worship, would they?

The thread has been a pretty solid paragon of reasoned discussion. Let's not start with sweeping generalisations and the resulting degeneration.

Cheers

Pip



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 9:51:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

The current "geniuses of smart" could not hold a candle to the enlightened intellect of the founding fathers.

The smaller the government, the bigger the people. The bigger the government and we become the "sheepeople".

RR


BEEP BEEP. Amen, I long for smaller government. But then liberals would have nothing to worship, would they?

The thread has been a pretty solid paragon of reasoned discussion. Let's not start with sweeping generalisations and the resulting degeneration.

Cheers

Pip



That was not sweeping, it was a baseball bat I used to hit the truth. But I will not do that again.[8D]



2ndACR -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 10:06:35 PM)

In Texas, technically, deadly force is authorized after dark to prevent any criminal act. (note, I said technically, shoot a kid toilet papering your house and odds are you gonna go to prison even though that is technically vandalism)

But in this day and age, you have to be pretty careful in regards to Texas law. The DA's will forward all shooting's to the grand jury and a person never knows which way that wind will blow. Your pretty safe if you were assaulted and shot back, had someone kick your door in, invade at any hour you home, draw a weapon of any kind.

All the Supreme Court and any lawmaker has to do is read the arguments for and against each article in the constitution and they will know exactly what the founding fathers meant.



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/11/2013 10:08:53 PM)

2ndACR penned:

quote:

All the Supreme Court and any lawmaker has to do is read the arguments for and against each article in the constitution and they will know exactly what the founding fathers meant.


Well, that seems to be the problem. Lawmakers, and those I can't mention, seem to have no ability to understand what the founders meant.



Anthropoid -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 4:18:30 AM)

Remarkably good debate you guys. I find it a damn shame that every time one of these tragedies occurs the prevalent knee-jerk reaction seems to be "ban guns." Unlikely to achieve what it is intended to achieve; impractical; and infringes on a right of all law-abiding American citizens, a right that as many of you have aptly pointed out, is still as valid today as it ever was.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 1:59:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

2ndACR penned:

quote:

All the Supreme Court and any lawmaker has to do is read the arguments for and against each article in the constitution and they will know exactly what the founding fathers meant.


Well, that seems to be the problem. Lawmakers, and those I can't mention, seem to have no ability to understand what the founders meant.



Amen. Lawmakers have unhooked our laws from The Constitution and have attached them to "case law". That is why you get some poorly thought out politician quoting "Scottish Law" in an issue that should involve the meaning in/of The Constitution.
The Constitution has been under attack for over one hundred years. It's been subtly changed by amendments that are party and agenda driven. If "real" American politicians were true politicians, instead of the "Parties First" groups we have now, there might be an Impeachment proceeding based on an overreaching executive branch circumventing The Constitution through the use of the so called "executive order". (If the reports of an executive order if something is not done about that pesky 2nd Amendment, are correct?)
If the executive branch, and for that matter the Supreme Court, can create laws out of whole cloth, when laws are to be founded in the legislative branch, all checks and balances have been put into a Constitutional crisis?
Legislative write the law, Supreme Court ensures that the new law is Constitutional, and the Executive branch enforces the law. How long that has broken down can be found in history (you can go all the way back to Andrew Jackson on that one).

It's funny how so many swear to "preserve and protect The Constitution", really really swear to almost "pinky swear', only to try to trash and change it when some "crisis" happens.

Mr. Pip. I hope that you are not put off by my comments. I thought I maintained some neutrality and was not intent on attacking any one person or party. A pox on both their houses for not being America first, over party.
Statesmen have been replaced by party hacks trying to maintain their power, regardless of which party is in power.

RR



Cap Mandrake -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 4:01:19 PM)

The thing about the current flurry of potential lawmaking is virtually none of what is beign discussed would have prevented Newton.

1) Gun resistration..they were registered

2) Gun show "loophole"...didn't apply here

3) Background checks improvement..no application here, they were the mother's guns.

4) Ammo clip limits to 10 rounds....the entire school was unarmed, the kook can reload another clip in 2 seconds without difficulty. So there is an extra 4 seconds of reloading compared to a 30 round magazine (the 10 round clips are preloaded of course)

5) "Assault rifle" ban...the kook hand handguns with ammo capacities equal to the clip limit called for. God forbid he comes in with a semi-auto shotgun (think Terminator). A shotgun is for "sport shooting", right? You know, the kind that Constitutional revisionists pretend is what was meant in the Second Ammendment.

6) Video game regulations? Locking up Quinton Tarrantino? Really? Seems to me that is a First Ammendment problem and that is the ACLU's favorite one.

7) Confiscation or mandatory buy-back of all private weapons in the US? Even if it weren't unequivocally unconstituional (which it is). It still wouldn't work. It would just create an undergound market. We would be having the Mexican equivalent of the ATF importing guns to the US. And, with looming DOD cutbacks, what happens when the Chinese land on Santa Monica Beach. What are we going to do...stop them with parking tickets and diversity lawsuits?




Cap Mandrake -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 4:16:21 PM)

For all the mockery and eye rolling, the only guy with an idea (armed guard) that might actually work is LaPierre of the NRA

Hijacking of aircraft with guns.....try to stop guns on planes.....hijacking with box cutters.....try to stop perfume bottles and do cavity searches of grannies........doesnt work....put armed guard on plane.


PLO shoots up airport in Europe.......put armed guards in airport


Crazies try to get into Capital building.....put armed guards in Capital


Crazies in courtrooms....put armed guards in courtrooms.


Lefty blowhard calls for elimination of private ownership of guns.....gets unpleasant sounding emails or tweets.....hires amred guards. [:D]




Qwixt -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 6:53:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

That was not sweeping, it was a baseball bat I used to hit the truth. But I will not do that again.[8D]


Actually, it's just more propagating the stupidity of today's binary world. Where simpletons cannot fathom shades of grey. You're either liberal or conservative, and no ground in between. Makes things real simple for the "geniuses".



Natali -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 7:07:57 PM)

I remember reading about the Swiss having a lot of people (militia?) with military assault rifles in the closet and they were expected to be good to go as soon as they were notified. Don't recall too many Swiss elementary schools getting shot up by Swiss.

Also remember this picture of an Israeli girl, in a bar on the beach, in a bikini, with a beautiful posterior, and a Uzi hanging in front of it. Don't recall too many Israeli elementary schools getting shot up by Israelis.

Probably the most restrictive gun ownership countries in the world are in the Baltic, but didn't some whacko go to some island and kill a bunch of kids in Sweden?

Protection of gun ownership is fundamental. It's not really "gun" ownership, it's the ownership of weapons with the ability to confront and overcome a tyranical "perp", whether the perp is an Islamist, a gang banger, a deranged lunitic, or an over-reaching government. It is only the government that is afraid of citizens having weapons. Well that's not exactly true, just ask the Crips what happened when they tried to take control of Laughlin.

Sami



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 7:17:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

That was not sweeping, it was a baseball bat I used to hit the truth. But I will not do that again.[8D]


Actually, it's just more propagating the stupidity of today's binary world. Where simpletons cannot fathom shades of grey. You're either liberal or conservative, and no ground in between. Makes things real simple for the "geniuses".


Amen. And I never understood the odd fear some have of political discussions. Without them, nothing is ever resolved. According to a Gallup poll from a few months ago, 40% of Americans identify themselves as Conservatives, 21% Liberals with the rest as undecided or independents.

How strange that the debate over gun control can take place here but one dare not mention political labels, which exist. WEIRD.



warspite1 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 7:18:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

I remember reading about the Swiss having a lot of people (militia?) with military assault rifles in the closet and they were expected to be good to go as soon as they were notified. Don't recall too many Swiss elementary schools getting shot up by Swiss.

Also remember this picture of an Israeli girl, in a bar on the beach, in a bikini, with a beautiful posterior, and a Uzi hanging in front of it. Don't recall too many Israeli elementary schools getting shot up by Israelis.

Probably the most restrictive gun ownership countries in the world are in the Baltic, but didn't some whacko go to some island and kill a bunch of kids in Sweden?

Protection of gun ownership is fundamental. It's not really "gun" ownership, it's the ownership of weapons with the ability to confront and overcome a tyranical "perp", whether the perp is an Islamist, a gang banger, a deranged lunitic, or an over-reaching government. It is only the government that is afraid of citizens having weapons. Well that's not exactly true, just ask the Crips what happened when they tried to take control of Laughlin.

Sami
warspite1

It was Norway



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 7:46:31 PM)

This just in from The Hill

"The White House has responded to a handful of petitions calling for various states to be given the right to secede from the United States, calling for unity and participatory government instead."


"The states included in the response are Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. The Texas petition received over 125,000 signatures, more than any other."

I fear many people truly do not understand how serious most Americans take the Bill of Rights and especially the second amendment.



Qwixt -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 8:10:23 PM)

That's has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or bill of rights, and is about people not being able to handle the results of the Presidential election. Just look at the states. The petitions were started immediately after the election.



Natali -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 9:14:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
It was Norway

I am so sorry. Oftentimes Americans just don't know one country from another. For that, I am truly sorry.

[ed] but does Norway v Sweden in some way inform in the premis?

Sami.



Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 10:06:19 PM)

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbery-victim-wants-to-thank-Good-Samaritans-who-came-to-his-rescue--186572461.html

quote:



Posted on January 11, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Updated yesterday at 9:46 PM


HOUSTON -- A couple of strangers came to the rescue when a man was robbed at gunpoint. Now, the victim wants to say thank you to the Good Samaritans.

Police believe the criminal who was canvassing a neighborhood in the 2500 block of Wichita near Hermann Park had no idea what he was in for when he picked his target.

The victim in this case had just walked back to his car from a bar around the corner.

Kevin Dorsey says he hadn’t even closed his car door Thursday night when a man wearing all black and a ski mask put a gun to his chest. The man took Dorsey’s wallet, cell phone and car keys.

After he was robbed, Dorsey began running down the street and says two men in a Mercedes asked him what had happened.

Dorsey told them and they not only caught up with the suspect, but they started shooting at him.

The suspect fired back. In the end, the two witnesses turned vigilantes won and took down the bad guy.

“I don’t believe in guns,” said Dorsey. “I don’t own a gun. I’m totally at the mercy of my saviors. They obviously sent two angels to help me. These people protected me when I couldn’t protect myself.”

After the robber had been shot, police say he jumped over a fence and was attacked by a German Shepherd. That attack prevented him from getting away.

The suspect, identified as Christopher Hutchins, is being treated at Ben Taub Hospital. He’s expected to recover.


Good Samaratins apprehend the robber (with assist from German sherpherd), not the police.

[On a side note---I thought Hutchins was dead?]



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 10:46:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
It was Norway

I am so sorry. Oftentimes Americans just don't know one country from another. For that, I am truly sorry.

[ed] but does Norway v Sweden in some way inform in the premis?

Sami.


I am on the floor laughing. Warspite1 is NOT American. He is a goofy Brit. And God bless him and his home town of Uttoxeter.



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 10:48:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

That's has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or bill of rights, and is about people not being able to handle the results of the Presidential election. Just look at the states. The petitions were started immediately after the election.


Read the article, and give some thought to the issue. It is not about "handling the election" it is about the smothering of individual liberties.



Qwixt -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/12/2013 11:00:58 PM)

A handful of "We the People" petitions calling for the government to allow various states to secede cropped up following President Obama's reelection.

What is there to give more thought to? These petitions did not exist until the day after the election. These petitions would not exist if their guy won. It's just more dumbing down of the U.S., "I didn't get my choice so I am going to cry and pout about it".



Aurelian -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/13/2013 1:49:38 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White


The court, (SCOTUS), further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null."



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625