User Tag List

Page 3 of 39 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 572

Thread: All Things Second Amendment

  1. #31
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    They might be here today if they weren't exclusively committed in "gun-free zones."
    It is to me completely Unconstitutional to forbid the bearing of arms on public property. That's to me a flagrantly Unconstitutional thing to do. If the Second Amendment is targeted at anybody, it's the government, police, and lawmakers. "Shall not be infringed" is written to them.

    But even in spite of this, I hold civilians a little responsible for the carnage, because so many civilians are not exercising their right to bear arms at all. It'd be a bit like people whose inalienable right to free speech is protected by the law, but they never speak, or write, anything. No matter how bad things get, in their neighborhoods, in their governments, in their work; in their churches; they never say or write a single solitary thing about any of it, ever, to anybody. They just go along to get along, and hope nothing bad ever happens, even though bad things are happening all the time, all around them, all across the country---and still, nothing.

    I consider being prepared to defend the life and limb of my neighbor as just being a good neighbor myself, and I think we can collectively improve the world if we all felt similarly, and worked to begin exercising our right to bear arms, at least in preparation to defend the life and limb of our neighbors, if not ourselves, and our families and loved ones, and other innocent of capital crimes people.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    Stripe (June 13th, 2019)

  3. #32
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,492
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,622 Times in 9,451 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    It is to me completely Unconstitutional to forbid the bearing of arms on public property. That's to me a flagrantly Unconstitutional thing to do. If the Second Amendment is targeted at anybody, it's the government, police, and lawmakers. "Shall not be infringed" is written to them.

    But even in spite of this, I hold civilians a little responsible for the carnage, because so many civilians are not exercising their right to bear arms at all. It'd be a bit like people whose inalienable right to free speech is protected by the law, but they never speak, or write, anything. No matter how bad things get, in their neighborhoods, in their governments, in their work; in their churches; they never say or write a single solitary thing about any of it, ever, to anybody. They just go along to get along, and hope nothing bad ever happens, even though bad things are happening all the time, all around them, all across the country---and still, nothing.

    I consider being prepared to defend the life and limb of my neighbor as just being a good neighbor myself, and I think we can collectively improve the world if we all felt similarly, and worked to begin exercising our right to bear arms, at least in preparation to defend the life and limb of our neighbors, if not ourselves, and our families and loved ones, and other innocent of capital crimes people.
    Yep.

    I only take exception in that you cite US law as the basis for the right to self defense. If that were all that backs your ideas, it would leave us "foreigners" high and dry.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 13th, 2019)

  5. #33
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Yep.

    I only take exception in that you cite US law as the basis for the right to self defense.
    No, I never do that. The right to bear arms is inalienable. All people possess it inherently. Law either recognizes, affirms, protects, defends, etc. the right, or it does not. Laws that do not recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., the right are bad laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If that were all that backs your ideas, it would leave us "foreigners" high and dry.
    You all foreigners are still people, right? National borders do not change inalienable rights.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    Stripe (June 13th, 2019)

  7. #34
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24969
    The Second Amendment, like the other Nine Amendments to the Constitution drawn up by James Madison and his Committee in the House, was created by the Jeffersonian Faction in our Federal government, not by what can be called the Lincoln Faction.

    Many may think of Lincoln as the president who got rid of slavery.

    But in many ways what can be called the Lincoln Faction opposed the Jefferson type of federal government. For one thing, the Jefferson federal government would give power to the states to correct and over rule policies which would harm the people. The Lincoln type federal government would not do that, though the Lincoln federal government still allowed for some checks and balances by allowing the three separate branches of government to stay in place.

    In our history, the administration of Andrew Jackson was a Jeffersonian type federal government, which governed at a time in history a number of years before the Lincoln administration came to power in 1861. Andrew Jackson was of Scots-Irish heritage, both in genetics and culture, while the earlier American presidents were of upper middle class English heritage.

    For the Second Amendment Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 was an American hero of the people. Andrew Jackson's militias beat the best army in the world at the Battle of New Orleans. He commanded a very diverse group of militias,which had never fought before together nor trained at all to fight, such as that of the New Orleans Creoles, the Tennessee and Kentucky pioneer militias, with many Scots-Irish men among them who were basically warriers, plus some men from the regular army and an assortment of others like free Blacks, American Indians, and even some Gulf of Mexico pirates, who supplied Jackson with artillery, powder and men to fire the big guns. These guys were all a product of the Second Amendment philosophy of the Jeffersonian type federal government, different from the Army of the Potomac, under Lincoln, which had no militias in it.

    Remember that the Federal Army under Lincoln invaded the South and made war upon civilians. Many families who had relatives living in the South during the War of 1861-65 have handed down stories over the generations since 1865 of civilian family members being shot and killed by Lincoln's federal soldiers.

    In some cases these family stories of civilian family members being shot and killed by Federal Soldiers in the Federal invasion of the South during the 1861-65 war were written in family histories which still exist. In my own family, for example,in a family history book there is a story about a boy named William, born in 1849 and died in 1862 -"Killed by Yankees on steep hill to grist mill - 13 years old."
    Last edited by northwye; June 13th, 2019 at 11:01 AM.

  8. #35
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    National borders do not change inalienable rights.
    It's also true that almost every country has an authorized path to gun ownership, regardless of how onerous or unwieldy that sometimes very narrow and treacherous authorized path is. Even Japan has an authorized path. I recommend making a serious effort at getting on that authorized path, wherever you live.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  9. #36
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,492
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,622 Times in 9,451 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    It's also true that almost every country has an authorized path to gun ownership, regardless of how onerous or unwieldy that sometimes very narrow and treacherous authorized path is. Even Japan has an authorized path. I recommend making a serious effort at getting on that authorized path, wherever you live.
    A Kiwi in Taiwan.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 13th, 2019)

  11. #37
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    A Kiwi in Taiwan.
    If Wikipedia's article is to be trusted on the matter, there are about 1000 civilians in Taiwan authorized to bear arms (in this case, a handgun). Research. What do you have to do to be one of those 1000? I would guess that one thing would be to attain citizenship, and then a whole bunch of other things after that.

    Good luck.

    And in the meantime, do you carry anything at all that you can use as a weapon in defense of yourself or your family, friends, neighbors, etc.? Many steel handtools, carried in your pocket or in a briefcase or satchel can in a pinch become improvised weapons. Of course they'd necessarily be very close quarters weapons, and not ranged weapons like guns, but already having such a tool on you will be much better than if your safety is ever suddenly threatened and you have to 'make do' with whatever you can find in that sudden and unexpected moment. And I'm sure that there are at least a few of these types of tools that are not illegal to have on your person in Taiwan.

    As a stopgap. As better than completely unarmed (=defenseless).
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  12. #38
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    And just in case anybody thinks that leos (law enforcement officers) don't use assault rifles or selective fire carbines, or that people are the only entities that can threaten your or your loved ones' safety:

    https://us.cnn.com/2019/06/14/us/coy...rnd/index.html

    Quote Originally Posted by The linked article
    . . . the coyote1 lunged at the woman . . . bit the woman on the back of her leg and went after the child, biting his right leg . . . [and] lunged at her again before taking off into a wooded area.

    ...
    [An leo] spotted the coyote . . . . Armed with an M42 . . . . The coyote "began to aggressively approach" the [leo] . . . [and the leo] fired several shots "to protect [themself]," . . . and killed the coyote.
    Everybody possesses the inalienable right to bear arms.


    1 - Not a human!
    2 - Not an assault weapon!
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  13. #39
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,152
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    The fact remains that we can defend the right and our persons, property, loved ones without assault rifles, distinguished singularly for their unusual ability to kill great numbers of people in remarkably short order.

    And in time we'll do something about that. Bump stocks were just the beginning of redrawing a rational line in the sand in terms of exercise balanced against the right of all of us to the thing without which every other right fails to have meaning: the right to the quiet enjoyment of our lives.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  14. #40
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,375
    Thanks
    4,747
    Thanked 10,343 Times in 7,659 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147797
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    ... I hold civilians a little responsible for the carnage, because so many civilians are not exercising their right to bear arms at all....

    I consider being prepared to defend the life and limb of my neighbor as just being a good neighbor myself, and I think we can collectively improve the world if we all felt similarly, and worked to begin exercising our right to bear arms, at least in preparation to defend the life and limb of our neighbors, if not ourselves, and our families and loved ones, and other innocent of capital crimes people.

    Amen, brother

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    Idolater (June 14th, 2019)

  16. #41
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The fact remains that we can defend the right and our persons, property, loved ones without
    Oh, absolutely. Like how we can shop at the grocery store upon our own two feet holding a sack; nobody needs a bicycle with a basket, a motor scooter with saddle bags, or a car with a trunk. And like how we can dig a pit with a teaspoon; nobody needs a shovel, a pickax, or a mini-excavator. And like how we can chop down a tree with a butter knife; nobody needs a handsaw, an ax, or a chainsaw.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    assault rifles
    Assault rifles are already so heavily regulated, that only wealthy collectors participate in that market. They're basically banned. The NFA + the Hughes Amendment basically bans them. But that's cool /cute that you keep wanting to use 'assault rifles' when you mean 'assault weapons.' Very cute, and cool.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    , distinguished singularly
    By the selector switch, yep. Between 'safe,' 'semiauto,' and either 'full auto' or 'burst,' depending upon the model. Only assault rifles (and carbines) have one of these selector switches, which does distinguish assault rifles (and carbines) singularly from all the other small arms in the gun market, including from assault weapons, which are civilian semiauto only replicas of real service rifles and carbines, which are virtually banned to civilians due to the NFA and the Hughes Amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    for their unusual ability to kill great numbers of people in remarkably short order.
    How can things kill? They're not even people. And that there are people who kill great numbers of other people in short order, is why the right to bear arms is inalienable, and ought to be defended by the law.

    All small arms are dangerous, and service rifles and carbines are more dangerous, which is not a point in dispute. But are they "unusual?" Of course they're Very dangerous. Thank the Good Lord Almighty, that they're Very dangerous. But are they "unusual?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And in time we'll do something about that.
    We're either going to amend the Constitution, or we're going to stop being largely lackadaisical wrt our right, which plays a part in us blessedly living in "a free state," and in preserving it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Bump stocks were just the beginning of redrawing
    Bump stocks wouldn't even be a thing, if it weren't for the NFA of 1934, which illicitly authorized the government to Unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms.

    The NFA was the very first 'gun control' in this country, and it is a doozy---Weapons Grade gun control if you ask me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    a rational line in the sand
    You're a gun hater. Hating, and then making laws out of that hate, is irrational.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    in terms of exercise balanced against the right of all of us to the thing without which every other right fails to have meaning: the right to the quiet enjoyment of our lives.
    Silencers'd do the trick.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idolater For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 15th, 2019),Stripe (June 14th, 2019)

  18. #42
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    . . . the quiet enjoyment of our lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Silencers'd do the trick.
    The S. Ct. recently sustained a lower court wrt silencers, explaining that these devices, which are exact parallels to car mufflers, or to lawnmower mufflers, just that they're for guns instead of for cars and lawnmowers, that silencers these devices were not "bearable arms." Quoting themselves, from their passage "all instruments constituting bearable arms," and they said, "Silencers aren't 'bearable arms.'"

    It reminded me of Caetano, where the S. Ct. had the opportunity to clear the water a bit on what the authoritative interpretation is of the Second Amendment, and took it, while in this case instead choosing to either preserve its muddiness, if not adding to it. Surely we don't look at cars and lawnmowers separately from their mufflers. We don't think in our heads, mentally, imagining, the car except its muffler, and then its muffler, as two very distinct entities that we need to deal with independent of each other. That makes zero sense with cars, and it makes zero sense with guns. If we have a problem with cars, it's a car problem. It's not a muffler problem, like, there's some advantage to having car mufflers be illegal. Balderdash, except, you know, what 'balderdash' euphemizes. Use your imagination. Balderdash.

    The only advantage to outlawing car mufflers is for safety, and it's interestingly one of the things that people thought about when they first thought about electric cars. They're going to be quieter than real cars.

    Well Einstein, we already put mufflers on cars on purpose to make them quieter, so if we're now going to say, "Oo, electric cars might be too quiet," then please stop being irrational. We're making cars quiet on purpose. This is either a good idea or it is not a good idea. Is it safer or more dangerous, for cars to be noisier? It's probably safer, to some people, because something like, "People will always hear the car coming!" floats through their head, like a blob of protein floating around in their eyeballs. They just see it, and they put a serious face on, and aim and fire it at you.

    It's absolutely silly to say silencers aren't bearable arms, while at the same time permitting, effectively authorizing, laws that forbid the sale of integrally silenced weapons without invoking and involving the ATF, because the thing is a "TITLE II" and that includes service rifles and service carbines---those are also Title II, along with silencers. aka 'suppressors,' as in 'sound suppressor.' A lot of gunnies call them 'cans,' but we maybe should just start calling them mufflers, because that's what they are, and that's what we're talking about here, in a very close parallel; they're little mufflers---we're fighting about whether or not little mufflers should be Title II weapons, equal to standard issue military small arms (selective fire rifles and selective fire carbines; aka service rifles and service carbines, respectively).

    Little mufflers are not machine guns, wink-wink. This has come about because of hate. Irrational hate of guns. Gun hating law making. It's like lawmaking on drugs, except drug induced laws would be better. Hate leads to things like murder. Like exactly murder; this is where murder comes from is hate. People hate, and then, down the road, innocent people get killed. That's how it works, and it works that way because that's what hate and hatred is and are---they are the seeds of murder. Hate is the seed of murder. Hate will sprout and grow and bear fruit and that fruit tastes just like and has the consistency and aroma of murder. Murder is from hate. Gun haters are haters. Haters hate. Hate is the seed of murder.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  19. #43
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,152
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Oh, absolutely. Like
    No, because the things you listed aren't distinguished singularly by their ability to cause large scale death in a few heartbeats. ARs don't make anything else easier outside of that.

    How can things kill?
    Sorry, I assumed everyone understands how guns work and that it takes a person to make them anything worth noting. In use these weapons are distinguished by their unusual capacity for mass murder, compared to the weapons I support and own.

    They're not even people. And that there are people who kill great numbers of other people in short order, is why the right to bear arms is inalienable, and ought to be defended by the law.
    The right to bear arms is not the right to bear every sort of arm, again.

    All small arms are dangerous, and service rifles and carbines are more dangerous, which is not a point in dispute. But are they "unusual?" Of course they're Very dangerous. Thank the Good Lord Almighty, that they're Very dangerous. But are they "unusual?"
    The AR is unusual in its capacity to be used as noted above.

    We're either going to amend the Constitution, or we're going to stop being largely lackadaisical wrt our right, which plays a part in us blessedly living in "a free state," and in preserving it.
    You aren't going to preserve a free state with your AR. That's a goofy fantasy that stopped being anything more long ago. You want to oppose the empowered now you use the Constitutional mechanism that affords a real opportunity to determine the future and vote.

    The NFA was the very first 'gun control' in this country, and it is a doozy---Weapons Grade gun control if you ask me.
    I wouldn't. I also don't ask a Marxist about property rights and for much the same reason.

    You're a gun hater.
    No, but it's like you to keep repeating it without reason. I'm a gun owner. I also support free speech, but would oppose you're screaming profanity in a church because you felt like it.

    Hating, and then making laws out of that hate, is irrational.
    Calling someone a hater of a thing they own and a right they support is irrational and evidence of lack of objectivity in your foundation.


    Silencers'd do the trick.
    You're a reason hater.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  20. #44
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,260
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44899
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, because the things you listed aren't distinguished singularly by their ability to cause large scale death in a few heartbeats.
    You're right, they're not. And they're also not, none of them are, rights enumerated, explicitly recognized and positively affirmed against, the federal government, in the Bill of Rights---not a single one of them is. Which is So unlike the right to bear arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    ARs don't make anything else easier outside of that.
    That's facile and belies a concerning shallowness in your thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Sorry, I assumed everyone understands how guns work and that it takes a person to make them anything worth noting.
    It's because of unsafe assumptions like that that the NRA exists, because the NRA's primary 'raison d'etre' is gun safety training, and a lot of gun safety training, because you're dealing with guns, which are thankfully extraordinarily dangerous for such small packages, is mental as much as physical. The root cause for a lot of gun accidents is because of mental and not physical errors. Whenever you assume something it must be a safe assumption, and I just want to mention more about the 'null hypothesis,' because I think I may have missed something when I mentioned it to you a while back. The null hypothesis is something from statistics, where instead of the scientific method, which only puts logical possibility as a condition upon the hypothesis, in statistics your measurements are based upon an assumption of a null hypothesis, which means loosely, "Whatever your idea is, it's wrong." You have to prove not that your idea is right, or even not wrong, all you have to show is that the odds that your idea is not wrong, are long. Within the discipline of statistics, 19-to-1 against ('p-value' 0.05) is considered long enough odds to consider your idea "significant." If the odds your idea is right is only 10-to-1 against ('p-value' ~0.10), doctors of the philosophy of the discipline of statistics will say that you haven't ruled out the null hypothesis, so your idea is probably wrong.

    And your idea on gun rights is almost definitely wrong, your 'p-value' is like .999999---but again, it doesn't matter, because Your vocation, can't agree even on what the Second Amendment says /means. We've got the NRA saying we're breaking the law, and we've got gun haters like you who claim to support the right to bear arms, and who also support massive new and ever more infringing gun control.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    In use these weapons are distinguished by their unusual capacity for mass murder, compared to the weapons I support and own.
    And the most dangerous in that regard are Title II weapons, which are the most heavily regulated small arms in the gun market.

    Like silencers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The right to bear arms is not the right to bear every sort of arm, again.
    Even when leos carry selective fire rifles or selective fire carbines, still the public isn't frightened or terrified. We already know this. The test is passed. If the police ran around with RPGs, might the public get antsy? idk. I've never seen it. I think there's a distinction between a police act, and a war zone, and I think that maybe that's the idea in the "unusual" test. Whatever the police arm themselves with, is at least, and maybe also at most, what the Second Amendment refers to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The AR is unusual in its capacity to be used as noted above.
    We'll see if any high court agrees with that being the test for "unusual," but so far it looks like it's about the reaction of the public to the weapons in question. We know that the public doesn't get frightened and terrified from what our police carry. Our police carry standard issue military small arms. Those are selective fire rifles and selective fire carbines when called for, along with daily ubiquitous openly carrying semiauto sidearms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You aren't going to preserve a free state with your AR. That's a goofy fantasy that stopped being anything more long ago. You want to oppose the empowered now you use the Constitutional mechanism that affords a real opportunity to determine the future and vote.
    I already know that. That's why I support and voted for President Trump, and why I'm going to do it again. Justice Ginsburg is not going to be on the S. Ct. in six years, and I want to make sure that another justice is there who thinks more like how the late Justice Scalia did, than how she does, regarding the right to bear arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I wouldn't. I also don't ask a Marxist about property rights and for much the same reason.
    Wow, you really know how to hurt a guy! Now I'm a Marxist. Irrational Marxist. I'm almost proud, Town. Gun hater.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, but it's like you to keep repeating it without reason.
    It's one of the least un-reasoned things I'm doing right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I'm a gun owner.
    Congratulations. I don't know if I own any.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I also support free speech, but would oppose you're screaming profanity in a church because you felt like it.
    You believe in property rights then, that's fine. The United States is property, and the Constitution is the supreme law, and the Bill of Rights commands Washington against, and the S. Ct. authoritatively declares that the states also are forbidden from, "infringing" the right to bear arms. You lawyers can't get your act straight on what this single sentence means, so we instead must rely upon democracy and civil court cases. Democratically we vote NRA, pretty much word-for-word, we're one-issue voters. We don't agree with the NRA on everything, but the NRA's got the most seats at the table already, and we need to be in those seats, because otherwise hate will rule the day in the making of our laws. We pack the S. Ct. as much as possible because that's how this stupid game is played, where it is possible for hate to lodge itself into our law through some sort of loophole in it, that permits hatred to establish itself right in the middle of our law, and I know that you Town, being an attorney and believing in Christ, know that this iniquity has been in our law before, and it's in our law now, hate. It is worthy, ethical work to nullify laws that only exist because of hate. It could be a good chunk of a career, doing only that work. I believe the right to bear arms is one of many valid and true facets of the right to life, which includes the right to not have your own gestation aborted, along with your right to not be fed to hungry lions and tigers, unarmed. Whoops! That's just the right to bear arms again. The Christians fed to lions and tigers, which had been starved previously, if they had their right to bear arms defended, they could have defended themselves against the hungry predators. But no, their inalienable right was not recognized, and they were eaten. Families sometimes, sometimes families watched their own siblings and parents and children, just get eaten, dying, in the mouth of a cat. And then they were eaten alive too.

    This is because of hate, and that hate manifested not just by feeding them to giant cats, but by feeding them unarmed to giant cats. All their rights were violated. It began with their right to religious liberty. It ended in murder. Hate manifests as violating inalienable rights, like the inalienable right to commit LGBTQI+ conjugal acts, and to procure abortions, without police authorized to penalize you for it. And the right to own and to carry standard issue military small arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Calling someone a hater of
    You're going to call me "irrational" in a moment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    a thing they own and a right they support
    I know, you own, something. Relax. It doesn't mean, anything. I know lots of people. You say you support the right to bear arms. I am also confident that anybody reading this thread knows, that there is a singular distinction between what you mean by 'right to bear arms,' and what I mean by 'right to bear arms.' We are talking straight past each other, but that's fine. I am fine with gun haters like you claiming to support the right to bear arms. It'll be OK.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    is irrational and evidence of lack of objectivity in your foundation.
    Such big teeth you have---I mean words! Such big words. All strung together nice and neat and such.

    Calling me irrational, after I accuse you of hatred.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You're a reason hater.
    I am not.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  21. #45
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,492
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 13,622 Times in 9,451 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147858
    Math again:
    Compare (people killed by guns Town would ban minus people saved by the same) with (people killed by guns he would allow).
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 15th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us