2nd Amendment Conversation from the Defund thread

Truth Detector said:
That's a lie filled strawman douchebag. We have crime problems in Democratically controlled urban shit holes with very strict gun laws. Why do you think that is douchebag? :palm:
Click to expand...

The reason is actually a very simple one. It is not possible to prevent someone from being armed, no matter what you do. Criminals do not care about law anyway. Whether there are gun laws or not, they are going to be criminals.
 
Nordberg said:
Stop that insane posting.
Click to expand...
Psychoquackery.
Nordberg said:
That is exactly what Scalia said he was doing.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
Nordberg said:
Sure the people should have rocket launchers and nukes.
Click to expand...
Yes. Having rocket launchers and nuclear weapons are weapons. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment banning rocket launchers or nuclear weapons as Arms.
I even built a rocket launcher not long ago. It launched some 300 rockets at once (Other people built the rockets, many of them do it as a hobby).
Nordberg said:
Do you think before you post? If so, it does not show.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself.
Nordberg said:
The Supreme Court has allowed control over weapons in the past. You know nothing.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has no authority to designate what weapon is 'allowed'. It has no authority to change the Constitution.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
15799119045_a2c9314aa9_o.jpg
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
Trolling your own thread now? A perfect illustration of how badly you have lost the argument.

But hey, I'm all for trolling dumb threads like this; why are private prisons a bad idea? :palm:
Click to expand...
Because it incentivizes unequal protection of the laws and criminalizing poverty on a for-profit basis. That is Bad and not Good. But hey, the (Ministry of) Truth Detectors knows best.
 
Into the Night said:
No, it isn't. Socialism is sharing of wealth by force. It has three major forms: communism, fascism, and slavery.
Socialism is theft. It is an economic system. It has nothing to do with crime or crime rates (other than the theft inherent in socialism).

Being hard on crime is simply enforcing the law.
Click to expand...
Being hard on crime is not Capitalism but Socialism on a national or international basis. Only right-wingers never seem to understand the economic concept. Why should the left take right-wingers seriously about economics?
 
danielpalos said:
Being hard on crime is not Capitalism but Socialism on a national or international basis. Only right-wingers never seem to understand the economic concept. Why should the left take right-wingers seriously about economics?
Click to expand...

STFU bitch, you ain't nothin' but the malakkia.

f6f.gif
 
SmarterthanYou said:
It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founding fathers would guarantee ONLY the government a right to keep and bear arms, after having just won a war for independence from their government that tried to take their arms.
Click to expand...

If you take danielpalos' explanation, then much as Switzerland does, the government is burdened and required to issue a military grade firearm and ammunition to every citizen ensuring all keep and bear arms for their state or the union. That would mean today, that every able-bodied citizen that makes up the militia as defined, needs a government issued, fully automatic, military grade M-16 and ammunition to go with it. The state or union (eg., feds) could issue such a weapon. It would be incumbent on the citizen to keep and bear that weapon in defense of the state or union.

I can go with that.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If you take danielpalos' explanation, then much as Switzerland does, the government is burdened and required to issue a military grade firearm and ammunition to every citizen ensuring all keep and bear arms for their state or the union. That would mean today, that every able-bodied citizen that makes up the militia as defined, needs a government issued, fully automatic, military grade M-16 and ammunition to go with it. The state or union (eg., feds) could issue such a weapon. It would be incumbent on the citizen to keep and bear that weapon in defense of the state or union.

I can go with that.
Click to expand...

I posed that very scenario and hypothesis to him........it went ignored. Much like all the quotes from the ratification period to archives went ignored. they avoid truth and facts
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I posed that very scenario and hypothesis to him........it went ignored. Much like all the quotes from the ratification period to archives went ignored. they avoid truth and facts
Click to expand...

Reason and logic escape the Left. They are like petulant little children and teenage girls when it comes to their positions on, well, everything.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If you take danielpalos' explanation, then much as Switzerland does, the government is burdened and required to issue a military grade firearm and ammunition to every citizen ensuring all keep and bear arms for their state or the union. That would mean today, that every able-bodied citizen that makes up the militia as defined, needs a government issued, fully automatic, military grade M-16 and ammunition to go with it. The state or union (eg., feds) could issue such a weapon. It would be incumbent on the citizen to keep and bear that weapon in defense of the state or union.

I can go with that.
Click to expand...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If you take danielpalos' explanation, then much as Switzerland does, the government is burdened and required to issue a military grade firearm and ammunition to every citizen ensuring all keep and bear arms for their state or the union. That would mean today, that every able-bodied citizen that makes up the militia as defined, needs a government issued, fully automatic, military grade M-16 and ammunition to go with it. The state or union (eg., feds) could issue such a weapon. It would be incumbent on the citizen to keep and bear that weapon in defense of the state or union.

I can go with that.
Click to expand...

The DCM does just that. I bought my M-1s from the Gov't through the DCM and have hundreds of rounds for them, also received from the gov't.
 
Into the Night said:
Psychoquackery.

Irrelevant.

Yes. Having rocket launchers and nuclear weapons are weapons. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment banning rocket launchers or nuclear weapons as Arms.
I even built a rocket launcher not long ago. It launched some 300 rockets at once (Other people built the rockets, many of them do it as a hobby).

You are describing yourself.

The Supreme Court has no authority to designate what weapon is 'allowed'. It has no authority to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Show me in the constitution where it defines which weapons a person can have. Does that include anti-tank weapons, hand grenades and bombs The founders were talking about flintlocks. They had no ability to predict what weapons would come along. They did add the ability to amend mistakes. Weapons in the 2nd is a glaring example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top