Reply
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55046 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jul 15, 2013

Setzaroth wrote:

Good one PLYMCO, I was too lazy to find a video of someone doing that. Granted, most psycos aren't going to be that coordinated, but it really doesn't take much practice to become fluid in reloading.


There are many logical counters to the majority of arguments people try to use against the liberty we have to own guns. 

Message 71 of 151 (185 Views)
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55046 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

Box9Missingo wrote:
I brought this up on the President thread... but what are your guy's thoughts on a limit in terms of clip size on guns?

I think it would be a good thing in terms of making it harder for those who want to kill or maim others. It'll take that much longer for them to change clips and people might actually have a chance of surviving.

Sorry I forgot one thing when responding to you before.

 

I have no problem with a restriction in clip size since I use magazines in my rifle and pistol Smiley Tongue

 

 

Message 72 of 151 (172 Views)
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 03/06/2011
Offline
458 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

Keep in mind a well-regulated militia in 1791 only had muskets and disease covered blankets...Nah, that route's boring.

 

The open interpretation through the preface (which you can choose to ignore if you want, English is English regardless of your opinion) allows the government to restrict gun ownership.

The operative clause simply directs at the course of action to fulfill the prefatory clause, not nullify it. In other words, to not infringe on the state's rights to have a well-regulated [in 21st century English: working] militia is to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Since we have State Defense Forces, I guess that the 2nd Amendment is working fine.

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach

Complete global saturation.
Message 73 of 151 (169 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14608 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

KIoey wrote:

Keep in mind a well-regulated militia in 1791 only had muskets and disease covered blankets...Nah, that route's boring.

 

The open interpretation through the preface (which you can choose to ignore if you want, English is English regardless of your opinion) allows the government to restrict gun ownership.

The operative clause simply directs at the course of action to fulfill the prefatory clause, not nullify it. In other words, to not infringe on the state's rights to have a well-regulated [in 21st century English: working] militia is to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Since we have State Defense Forces, I guess that the 2nd Amendment is working fine.

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach

 


Nobody will ever want to have a proper discussion with you if you are constantly standing over them and insulting them. You do not even try to hide that you think you are the smartest in the room. 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 74 of 151 (162 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55046 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

KIoey wrote:

Keep in mind a well-regulated militia in 1791 only had muskets and disease covered blankets...Nah, that route's boring.

 

The open interpretation through the preface (which you can choose to ignore if you want, English is English regardless of your opinion) allows the government to restrict gun ownership.

The operative clause simply directs at the course of action to fulfill the prefatory clause, not nullify it. In other words, to not infringe on the state's rights to have a well-regulated [in 21st century English: working] militia is to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Since we have State Defense Forces, I guess that the 2nd Amendment is working fine.

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach


Overlooking your obvious insecurities, as evidenced by the way you try to make your comments insulting, I will give you a response.

 

Keep in mind in 1791 the government did not have tanks, assault rifles, jet fighters, and more.  I know you didn't want to go that route so I will stop there but I'm ready to debate this if you want.

 

The language of the 2nd ammendment does not grant government power over our liberty to bear arms.  If it does please explain why you believe so.   I believe the 2nd ammenmdnet states that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and in the historical context of the times those arms would be weaponry comparable to whatever the government possesses, as described in the first post.

 

Also you must keep it in the context of 16th century english as that was in practice when the 2nd ammendment was written.

 

 

 

 

Message 75 of 151 (157 Views)
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 07/09/2013
Offline
426 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 16, 2014

Nerf guns. -\m/

 photo Untitled_zps78a0672e.png
Message 76 of 151 (153 Views)
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 03/06/2011
Offline
458 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

KIoey wrote:

Keep in mind a well-regulated militia in 1791 only had muskets and disease covered blankets...Nah, that route's boring.

 

The open interpretation through the preface (which you can choose to ignore if you want, English is English regardless of your opinion) allows the government to restrict gun ownership.

The operative clause simply directs at the course of action to fulfill the prefatory clause, not nullify it. In other words, to not infringe on the state's rights to have a well-regulated [in 21st century English: working] militia is to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Since we have State Defense Forces, I guess that the 2nd Amendment is working fine.

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach


Overlooking your obvious insecurities, as evidenced by the way you try to make your comments insulting, I will give you a response.

 

Keep in mind in 1791 the government did not have tanks, assault rifles, jet fighters, and more.  I know you didn't want to go that route so I will stop there but I'm ready to debate this if you want.

 

The language of the 2nd ammendment does not grant government power over our liberty to bear arms.  If it does please explain why you believe so.   I believe the 2nd ammenmdnet states that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and in the historical context of the times those arms would be weaponry comparable to whatever the government possesses, as described in the first post.

 

Also you must keep it in the context of 16th century english as that was in practice when the 2nd ammendment was written.

 

 

 

 


This is why I included that abridged version of a coherent argument at the bottom for you.

Complete global saturation.
Message 77 of 151 (142 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Online
5477 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 16, 2014

KIoey wrote:

This is why I included that abridged version of a coherent argument childish insult in place of a complete point at the bottom for you.


Fixed that for you.

 

Kloey, your points would be received far better if you didn't constantly resort to attempting to insult every other person's intelligence at every opportunity.  

Grindhead_Jim

Message 78 of 151 (139 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 03/06/2011
Offline
458 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

KIoey wrote:

Keep in mind a well-regulated militia in 1791 only had muskets and disease covered blankets...Nah, that route's boring.

 

The open interpretation through the preface (which you can choose to ignore if you want, English is English regardless of your opinion) allows the government to restrict gun ownership.

The operative clause simply directs at the course of action to fulfill the prefatory clause, not nullify it. In other words, to not infringe on the state's rights to have a well-regulated [in 21st century English: working] militia is to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Since we have State Defense Forces, I guess that the 2nd Amendment is working fine.

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach


Overlooking your obvious insecurities, as evidenced by the way you try to make your comments insulting, I will give you a response.

 

Keep in mind in 1791 the government did not have tanks, assault rifles, jet fighters, and more.  I know you didn't want to go that route so I will stop there but I'm ready to debate this if you want.

 

The language of the 2nd ammendment does not grant government power over our liberty to bear arms so long as each state can assemble a militia.  If it does please explain why you believe so I see you already posted a detailed explanation about how English operates, I'm just too stupid to read.  I believe, and I'm entitled to a wrong opinion, the 2nd ammenmdnet states that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and in the historical context of the times those arms would be weaponry comparable to whatever the government possesses, as described in the first post.

 

Also you must keep it in the context of 16th 18th century english as that was in practice when the 2nd ammendment was written, which I'll make up rules about because 17th century English invalidates my terrible logic.

 


 Fixed too. No need to thank me.

Complete global saturation.
Message 79 of 151 (133 Views)
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 03/06/2011
Offline
458 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

Grindhead_Jim wrote:

KIoey wrote:

This is why I included that abridged version of a coherent argument childish insult in place of a complete point at the bottom for you.


Fixed that for you.

 

Kloey, your points would be received far better if you didn't constantly resort to attempting to insult every other person's intelligence at every opportunity.  


Not everyone's, just most. Blatantly ignoring facts for opinion to structure an argument doesn't make it more valid

 

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach

Complete global saturation.
Message 80 of 151 (132 Views)
0 Likes