Gun Debate

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

yes; the scoTs have stripped the country of dangerous animals and doesn't have need for personal protection. it's a different situation here and that needs to be taken into consideration.

make up your mind

either your gun is for hunting and for protection against wild animals or its a tool used to fight a rogue government... or against criminals... or whatever it is that you can mould to fit your viewpoint

not many inner city people who legally own a gun have the need to shoot a mountain lion

onelongsong

gue_barium wrote:

You don't have wolves in arizona.

in any case the point i was making is that, that it may be a tool of the trade, it does not a human being make.

i agree. a person is only worth the sum of their merits. to those who know me; my hunanitarian work speaks for itself. but what we are discussing is taking away a tool i need. i'd never be able to hire ranch hands twice a year if they couldn't protect themselves. i guess when you're willing to pay $30/pound for burger we could make your plan work.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

make up your mind

either your gun is for hunting and for protection against wild animals or its a tool used to fight a rogue government... or against criminals... or whatever it is that you can mould to fit your viewpoint

not many inner city people who legally own a gun have the need to shoot a mountain lion

i use a knife to cut meat. i also use it to cut bread. i may also use it to cut rope. one tool has many purposes.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

i use a knife to cut meat. i also use it to cut bread. i may also use it to cut rope. one tool has many purposes.

but your 'right' to have it is only to form a well regulated militia.... and even then it makes no mention of ammunition

jeffbr

dunkman wrote:

but your 'right' to have it is only to form a well regulated militia.... and even then it makes no mention of ammunition

You should quit. You've gone down this road before, and your understanding of early American history is sorely lacking. Read the writings of the founders. Understand what they were trying to accomplish. Understand what is meant by a well regulated militia. Understand who "the people" are, and why "the people" were talked about in the the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc... amendments. Then explain to me how "the people" doesn't really apply in the 2nd.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

but your 'right' to have it is only to form a well regulated militia.... and even then it makes no mention of ammunition

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

how can you be taught to use them without ammunition?

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)

i've got a big meat delivery so i'll be gone a bit. i'll come back and check your answer when the customer leaves.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

1788... you not got anything more eh..... modern?

to put it into context, here are other notable 1788 events!!!

Isaac Briggs and William Longstreet patent the steamboat...

11 ships of First Fleet from Botany Bay led by Arthur Phillip land in what would become Sydney, Australia. Great Britain establishes the prison colony of New South Wales, the first permanent European settlement on the continent.

Henry Benedict Stuart becomes the new Stuart claimant to the throne of Great Britain as King Henry IX and the figurehead of Jacobitism.



ancient history... and yet you are using a 1788 law or right to affirm your stance... well in that case where are my slaves? i want ithem back.. it was my right prior to 1776 in Scotland... hey you guys had it right when some states didnt ban it up until 1865.

seems archaic looking back at it now

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

1788... you not got anything more eh..... modern?

to put it into context, here are other notable 1788 events!!!

Isaac Briggs and William Longstreet patent the steamboat...

11 ships of First Fleet from Botany Bay led by Arthur Phillip land in what would become Sydney, Australia. Great Britain establishes the prison colony of New South Wales, the first permanent European settlement on the continent.

Henry Benedict Stuart becomes the new Stuart claimant to the throne of Great Britain as King Henry IX and the figurehead of Jacobitism.



ancient history... and yet you are using a 1788 law or right to affirm your stance... well in that case where are my slaves? i want ithem back.. it was my right prior to 1776 in Scotland... hey you guys had it right when some states didnt ban it up until 1865.

seems archaic looking back at it now

Why don't you come to the US and fight against free speech too oh Wise One?

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

Why don't you come to the US and fight against free speech too oh Wise One?

because i'm all for Free Speech

i cant think of anyone who was killed by the sound produced by a vocal chord

although guys like MLKing used Free Speech and look what happened to him... shot by a retard.. how ironic

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

because i'm all for Free Speech

i cant think of anyone who was killed by the sound produced by a vocal chord

although guys like MLKing used Free Speech and look what happened to him... shot by a retard.. how ironic

You seem to be against laws from the time of the writing of our Constitution. Maybe you really aren't though. Maybe you just haven't studied the beginnings of our country all that much.

dunkman

zstillings wrote:

You seem to be against laws from the time of the writing of our Constitution. Maybe you really aren't though. Maybe you just haven't studied the beginnings of our country all that much.

do you truly have Freedom of Speech???

While personal freedom of speech is usually respected, freedom of press and mass publishing encounter some restrictions. Some of the recent issues include:

* United States military censoring blogs written by military personnel.
* The Federal Communications Commission censoring television and radio, citing obscenity, e.g., Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony (Though the FCC only has the power to regulate over the air broadcasts and not cable or satellite television or satellite radio).
* Scientology suppressing criticism, citing freedom of religion, e.g., Keith Henson.

As of 2005, United States was ranked 44th of 167 countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. In the 2006 index the United States has fallen nine places and is now ranked 53rd of 168 countries.


and at number 43 on that list .... Republic of China (Taiwan)

damn commie press has more freedom of speech

rebornFixer

dunkman wrote:

do you truly have Freedom of Speech???

While personal freedom of speech is usually respected, freedom of press and mass publishing encounter some restrictions. Some of the recent issues include:

* United States military censoring blogs written by military personnel.
* The Federal Communications Commission censoring television and radio, citing obscenity, e.g., Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony (Though the FCC only has the power to regulate over the air broadcasts and not cable or satellite television or satellite radio).
* Scientology suppressing criticism, citing freedom of religion, e.g., Keith Henson.

As of 2005, United States was ranked 44th of 167 countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. In the 2006 index the United States has fallen nine places and is now ranked 53rd of 168 countries.


and at number 43 on that list .... Republic of China (Taiwan)

damn commie press has more freedom of speech

Ask Imus if the U.S. truly has free speech ...

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

1788... you not got anything more eh..... modern?

to put it into context, here are other notable 1788 events!!!

Isaac Briggs and William Longstreet patent the steamboat...

11 ships of First Fleet from Botany Bay led by Arthur Phillip land in what would become Sydney, Australia. Great Britain establishes the prison colony of New South Wales, the first permanent European settlement on the continent.

Henry Benedict Stuart becomes the new Stuart claimant to the throne of Great Britain as King Henry IX and the figurehead of Jacobitism.



ancient history... and yet you are using a 1788 law or right to affirm your stance... well in that case where are my slaves? i want ithem back.. it was my right prior to 1776 in Scotland... hey you guys had it right when some states didnt ban it up until 1865.

seems archaic looking back at it now

murder; stealing; and many other laws have been around for thousands of years. ancient history. let's change those laws too.

your argument actually proves the law has stood the test of time. more reason for keeping it.

floyd1975

dunkman wrote:

do you truly have Freedom of Speech???

While personal freedom of speech is usually respected, freedom of press and mass publishing encounter some restrictions. Some of the recent issues include:

* United States military censoring blogs written by military personnel.
* The Federal Communications Commission censoring television and radio, citing obscenity, e.g., Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony (Though the FCC only has the power to regulate over the air broadcasts and not cable or satellite television or satellite radio).
* Scientology suppressing criticism, citing freedom of religion, e.g., Keith Henson.

As of 2005, United States was ranked 44th of 167 countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. In the 2006 index the United States has fallen nine places and is now ranked 53rd of 168 countries.


and at number 43 on that list .... Republic of China (Taiwan)

damn commie press has more freedom of speech

I will agree that we don't have as much freedom of speech as I would like but this does nothing to bolster your argument for repealing our whole Constitution because it is old. The 10th Amendment has been thrown out as well.

Kann

What does freedom of speech have to do with the freedom to bear arms?
Freedom of speech is something universal (in the sence that speech is the same today than it was in 1788), arms are not (I wonder if your founding fathers would have been so confident had there been automatic assault weapons in that day)

floyd1975

reborncareerist wrote:

Ask Imus if the U.S. truly has free speech ...

Freedom of speech has become a warped idea today. Look around this board and you can see a bunch of people who think it includes the right to be heard and the right to not be offended. It is an individual right that, for some reason, the majority of people seem to believe that they are the only ones who possess it.

rebornFixer

zstillings wrote:

Freedom of speech has become a warped idea today. Look around this board and you can see a bunch of people who think it includes the right to be heard and the right to not be offended. It is an individual right that, for some reason, the majority of people seem to believe that they are the only ones who possess it.

True enough ...

floyd1975

Kann wrote:

What does freedom of speech have to do with the freedom to bear arms?
Freedom of speech is something universal (in the sence that speech is the same today than it was in 1788), arms are not (I wonder if your founding fathers would have been so confident had there been automatic assault weapons in that day)

Read the original post that brought this up. The Scottish one was arguing to rid our country of our Constitution.

onelongsong

zstillings wrote:

You seem to be against laws from the time of the writing of our Constitution. Maybe you really aren't though. Maybe you just haven't studied the beginnings of our country all that much.

maybe the scots don't have a constitution or similar bases on which describes the countries beliefs and law. maybe they just wing it when the pubs are closed.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

murder; stealing; and many other laws have been around for thousands of years. ancient history. let's change those laws too.

they have been around but you fail to recognise that they have been amended, changed, moulded, to fit the current ways in which we live... the laws are pliable... but they have all been updated within the last 50 years or so