Doesnt the 2nd Amendment guarantee every white man a girlfriend also? Or is it a gun....to substitute for a girlfriend?

http://news.aol.com/article/la-fitness-shooting-in-collier-township/603649

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

I lik Vins. Vins is kuul. Vins iz a janetur hu mopes up fre helth caer. Vins haz no gunz, no chiks and no funn. Im beginun to wundur abot Vins. Mebbe Vins iz not sow kuul. I mite not lik Vins mouch longur.

Vins Fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I lik Vins. Vins is kuul. Vins iz a janetur hu
> mopes up fre helth caer. Vins haz no gunz, no
> chiks and no funn. Im beginun to wundur abot Vins.
> Mebbe Vins iz not sow kuul. I mite not lik Vins
> mouch longur.


How many guns do you own? I hope you have a wife or girlfriend! Dont want you huting anyone.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

What are you doing Vince?

Posting a link to an article about a dangerous white man doesn't prove anything, it just makes you look like a bigot. Just how when Junes would post articles about dangerous hispanics it made her look like a bigot.

Every race is more than capable of doing horrible things. Why must you always bring race into the picture?

You aren't proving anything except that you have an axe to grind with the "White Man".

How are you helping?

It's more an issue about guns....I am a long time advocate of gun control. Though an unpopular position, it is mine. Ever see wo sells guns at the gun shows...see who is buying all those guns...who is stockpiling guns and ammo...who is going around saying things like if we dont like what the voters decide at in the ballot box, they'll start voting with their bullet box? WHite people...and yes I am white...I see fear in these peoples eyes...and a need violently to lash out whoever they feel is depriving them of "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and a gun".

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2009 09:11PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's more an issue about guns...


and the thread title really reflects that
u fucking n*****

Another Angry black Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's more an issue about guns...
>
>
> and the thread title really reflects that
> u fucking n*****

Fear....it's scarey!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince is hispanic?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's more an issue about guns...

Actually, it's more an issue of control. If they have guns, you can't control them. For some reason, they don't want to be controlled.

Such a pity, you just have their best interests at heart.

NcDJJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's more an issue about guns...
>
> Actually, it's more an issue of control. If they
> have guns, you can't control them. For some
> reason, they don't want to be controlled.
>
> Such a pity, you just have their best interests at
> heart.


Sooooo...guns give you a certain "freedom"? A scarey but interesting thought. I think I have everyone's bst interest in mind.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's more an issue about guns....I am a long time
> advocate of gun control. Though an unpopular
> position, it is mine. Ever see wo sells guns at
> the gun shows...see who is buying all those
> guns...who is stockpiling guns and ammo...who is
> going around saying things like if we dont like
> what the voters decide at in the ballot box,
> they'll start voting with their bullet box? WHite
> people...and yes I am white...I see fear in these
> peoples eyes...and a need violently to lash out
> whoever they feel is depriving them of "life,
> liberty, the pursuit of happiness and a gun".


But that is like arguing against legal alcohol sales because all the people that hang out in dive bars in seedy parts of the city are rip-roaring drunk.

What about all the responsible, tax paying, law abiding, normal citizens, like doctors, judges, lawyers, accountants, who own guns?

Should their rights be abridged because there's a fringe (however large that fringe is) that can be labeled as being nutty and prone to making statements against a government that would propose taking away their guns?

I'm sure many a drunk has threatened to revolt against the government if they took away their vodka or beer. That doesn't justify taking away everyone's right to drink alcohol.

Gun control is a funny issue. It ultimately serves the state, but there are lots of people who look at the issue with fear and lack of understanding, and consider it a safety issue. They believe, with some intellectually lazy reasoning, that by banning legal, responsible gun ownership, that this would somehow positively affect the illegal use of fire arms. The reasoning, as lazy as it is, is that if guns aren't available to legal gun owners, then criminals won't have access to them. Bloomberg's got this logic fault to a tee.

I agree that guns shouldn't be sold to criminals. I agree that anyone that sells a gun to someone without proper background checks IS a criminal.

Let's stop that, instead of banning guns altogether. Just like bartenders are asked not to serve extremely drunk people, while we expect them to serve responsible drinkers.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesnt the 2nd Amendment guarantee every white man
> a girlfriend also? Or is it a gun....to
> substitute for a girlfriend?
>
> http://news.aol.com/article/la-fitness-shooting-i
> n-collier-township/603649


I guess the 21st amendment also guarantees that drunk white women can drive on any side of the road they choose?

Alcohol claims the lives of (8), including (4) children. And not a peep from anyone about banning alcohol.

I guess these (8) dead bodies are worth less than those (4). There's strange math in tragedy.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090805/NEWS07/90805039/Cops--Mom-in-N.Y.-wrong-way-crash-was-drunk



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2009 10:43PM by trogdor!.

MARIJUANA-(0)

I guess your point is alcohol is more dangerous then guns. I agree..and thats why we have all sorts of laws prohibiting public intoxicication. I could compromise on the appropriate guns being allowed for home security and hunting. But any public usage..display..of any sort....arrest on the spot.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess your point is alcohol is more dangerous
> then guns. I agree..and thats why we have all
> sorts of laws prohibiting public intoxicication.
> I could compromise on the appropriate guns being
> allowed for home security and hunting. But any
> public usage..display..of any sort....arrest on
> the spot.


I'm not sure whether alcohol is more dangerous than guns. That wasn't really my point. I was just trying to use comparative logic to show that you can't label guns or alcohol as bad just because some people misuse them.

I think open carry is a good thing (both for guns and for alcohol, btw) -- open carry guns send a distinct message -- if you're a criminal, you better be willing to die for whatever crime you're thinking of committing.

Unfortunately, the people who are all for gun control imagine that everyone carrying a gun is a potential mass murdering nut case. Statistically, that might be true, but only slightly, probably on the order of the odds of being struck by lightning, or winning the powerball.

Just imagine you're in a bank. You're standing behind a respectable looking guy with a gun on his hip. He looks like he might be a doctor or maybe an off duty cop. You could either fear him, or you could say to yourself, "well, at least I know that if some jack ass comes in planning to rob the place, he's probably going to turn around and walk away."

eh i would call the cops. i dont believe you are allowed to carry any weapon in a bank or liquor establishment, for the appropriate reasons. concealed or not i think it is illegal.

Vince has a lot of fears.

Hey Vince, guess what, I don't own a gun, so you can stop worrying :)

Who are you to decide how other people live their lives anyway Vince? This country is built on Freedom - and it is people like that you that will justify removing Freedom in everyone's best interest.

You are the folks that never see just how dangerous you are to our country. Much more dangerous then everyone owning a gun if they so choose. The government is not always your friend - this was demonstrated for CENTURIES in governments that existed long before the US came to be. When they wrote the Constitution and included the 2nd Amendment, they did it with the centuries of history of governments to build on. Today, in the US, they barely teach enough history for people to realize why things are setup the way it is in the US. Strangely enough, the Constitution was not written in a vacuum - much as folks today would like to make others believe.

You may not like that others can own guns, or drink, or smoke - but that is what freedom is all about.

Feel free to twist what I said - you can give it a try - or even throw one of your usual off comments to change the subject.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eh i would call the cops. i dont believe you are
> allowed to carry any weapon in a bank or liquor
> establishment, for the appropriate reasons.
> concealed or not i think it is illegal.

I meant for sake of argument.

I'm not sure if it is up to the bank, or if it's a state-wide law against guns in banks.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince has a lot of fears.
>
> Hey Vince, guess what, I don't own a gun, so you
> can stop worrying :)

thank god.
>
> Who are you to decide how other people live their
> lives anyway Vince? This country is built on
> Freedom - and it is people like that you that will
> justify removing Freedom in everyone's best
> interest.
>

How do guns influence how a person lives their life?

> You are the folks that never see just how
> dangerous you are to our country. Much more
> dangerous then everyone owning a gun if they so
> choose. The government is not always your friend -
> this was demonstrated for CENTURIES in governments
> that existed long before the US came to be. When
> they wrote the Constitution and included the 2nd
> Amendment, they did it with the centuries of
> history of governments to build on. Today, in the
> US, they barely teach enough history for people to
> realize why things are setup the way it is in the
> US. Strangely enough, the Constitution was not
> written in a vacuum - much as folks today would
> like to make others believe.

I do not consider "the government" my friend. I consider the rule of law "my friend".
>
> You may not like that others can own guns, or
> drink, or smoke - but that is what freedom is all
> about.
>

As long as you do those things in the privacy of your home..fine. Once you step out you are in public..and we should all care.


> Feel free to twist what I said - you can give it a
> try - or even throw one of your usual off comments
> to change the subject.

Okay.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2009 11:21PM by Vince(1).

Let's get the facts straight about the 2nd amendment. No where does it say that a "person" has the right to own a gun. No where does it say a state doesnt have the right to limit any single persons access to guns

What it does talk about is state militias having guns. This during a time when there was no US Army...at a time when states were expected to provide men to form a national army when needed.

The recent Supreme Court decision tot he contrary is anexample of an activist judicary gome amuck.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's get the facts straight about the 2nd
> amendment. No where does it say that a "person"
> has the right to own a gun. No where does it say a
> state doesnt have the right to limit any single
> persons access to guns

Are people, persons?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


>
> What it does talk about is state militias having
> guns. This during a time when there was no US
> Army...at a time when states were expected to
> provide men to form a national army when needed.
>

Actually, this was at a time when the people just overthrew their government and created this constitution. The militia was formed to overthrow the government of King George, and thus they never wanted a system of government that owned a monopoly on the use of force and violence against its peoples.


> The recent Supreme Court decision to the contrary
> is anexample of an activist judiciary gone amuck.


Activist judiciary? Really? Come on, I know people live in soundbites, but you seem smarter than that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2009 11:44PM by Thurston Moore.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NcDJJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's more an issue about guns...
> >
> > Actually, it's more an issue of control. If
> they
> > have guns, you can't control them. For some
> > reason, they don't want to be controlled.
> >
> > Such a pity, you just have their best interests
> at
> > heart.
>
>
> Sooooo...guns give you a certain "freedom"? A
> scarey but interesting thought. I think I have
> everyone's bst interest in mind.


Yeah, I guess it's an aspect of society that you fail to fathom however. It is quite a good thing that for us, that our Founding Fathers were far more insightful than you.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> >
> > What it does talk about is state militias
> having
> > guns. This during a time when there was no US
> > Army...at a time when states were expected to
> > provide men to form a national army when
> needed.
> >
>
> Actually, this was at a time when the people just
> overthrew their government and created this
> constitution. The militia was formed to overthrow
> the government of King George, and thus they never
> wanted a system of government that owned a
> monopoly on the use of force and violence against
> its peoples.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are a believer in the right of individuals to own firearms, and not simply of the opinion that such currently only relates towards the National Guard, am I correct?

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you
> are a believer in the right of individuals to own
> firearms, and not simply of the opinion that such
> currently only relates towards the National Guard,
> am I correct?

I can read the constitution plainly and without a predisposition for one political ideology or another.

The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not sure how there should ever be any confusion as to the meaning of that sentence. KEEP and BEAR arms. The right of THE PEOPLE. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

People looking to redefine the amendment based on their own fears or political ideology get tripped up on the "A well regulated Militia" part. But the amendment is absolutely clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not going to be a literalist and demand that no laws be enacted regulating firearm ownership or sales, but as long as we continue to allow law abiding citizens to own guns if they desire, we stick with the spirit of that amendment.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you
> > are a believer in the right of individuals to
> own
> > firearms, and not simply of the opinion that
> such
> > currently only relates towards the National
> Guard,
> > am I correct?
>
> I can read the constitution plainly and without a
> predisposition for one political ideology or
> another.
>
> The 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of
> the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
> I'm not sure how there should ever be any
> confusion as to the meaning of that sentence.
> KEEP and BEAR arms. The right of THE PEOPLE.
> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>
> People looking to redefine the amendment based on
> their own fears or political ideology get tripped
> up on the "A well regulated Militia" part. But
> the amendment is absolutely clear. The right of
> the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
> I'm not going to be a literalist and demand that
> no laws be enacted regulating firearm ownership or
> sales, but as long as we continue to allow law
> abiding citizens to own guns if they desire, we
> stick with the spirit of that amendment.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince has a lot of fears.
>
> I do not consider "the government" my friend. I
> consider the rule of law "my friend".

Vince, if you considered the "rule of law" your friend, you would not be
shooting off your mouth about illegal immigration, gun-control, or gay marriage.
If you believed in the "rule of law" you would have served in the military
instead of playing "chicken" when your number was up instead of hiding behind
your mothers apron.

BOO! go home Jerry Rubin, you suck the big one my friend.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 11:16AM by Alias.

Quote

Authorities said George Sodini, 48, killed three women and himself at an LA Fitness health club in Collier Township, Pa., Tuesday night. On a Web page in his name, Sodini wrote rambling messages about his unhappiness, his hatred of women and how he was tired of being rejected by them. "Death Lives!" he wrote in one entry.

that is so fucking metal.


DEATH LIVES!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

I kindu lik Vins. Vins iz kindu kuul but not su kuul animor. Vins iz a biguted raysis januter hu uzed to spel Ks for Cs. Vins iz a constutushenul ienstein cuz he cun intrprut thu constutushen az a bigut an mak it saye whut he wantz. Vins iz alsoe a fashust cuz he liks sniches. I kinda lik Vins

i like Vins Fan's posts. :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesnt the 2nd Amendment guarantee every white man
> a girlfriend also? Or is it a gun....to
> substitute for a girlfriend?
>
> http://news.aol.com/article/la-fitness-shooting-i
> n-collier-township/603649

Depends on your perspective. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ax5ZIdFoW1U/SaYyw1LUNwI/AAAAAAAALEU/cDjKUXbDlKE/s1600-h/girls-and-guns-03.jpg

Jerry Rubin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Vince has a lot of fears.
> >
> > I do not consider "the government" my friend.
> I
> > consider the rule of law "my friend".
>
> Vince, if you considered the "rule of law" your
> friend, you would not be
> shooting off your mouth about illegal immigration,
> gun-control, or gay marriage.
> If you believed in the "rule of law" you would
> have served in the military
> instead of playing "chicken" when your number was
> up instead of hiding behind
> your mothers apron.


Isn't that the fucking truth. Illegal immigration. What part of illegal isn't relevant here. Rule of law, my ass.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's get the facts straight about the 2nd
> amendment. No where does it say that a "person"
> has the right to own a gun. No where does it say a
> state doesnt have the right to limit any single
> persons access to guns
>
> What it does talk about is state militias having
> guns. This during a time when there was no US
> Army...at a time when states were expected to
> provide men to form a national army when needed.
>
> The recent Supreme Court decision tot he contrary
> is anexample of an activist judicary gome amuck.

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here, the right of the people means individual citizens in the US.

4th Amendment:

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.

Here, the right of the people means individual citizens in the US.

9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here, people means individual citizens in the US.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here, people means individual citizens in the US.

17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Here, elected by the people thereof means individual citizens in the respective state.

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Here, the right of the People means the right of members of the militia? Why the inconsistency? Why not just say that? You know the answer, it's because the right of the People doesn't mean anything different in this context. The founders wanted the right of each citizen to own weapons to be enumerated and protected, not restricted to members of the ruling class that were allowed into militias.

Remember that for most of history, permission to own weapons was only granted to nobility. The lower classes were not allowed to have weapons, lest they use them to resist the will of the nobles and rulers. The founding fathers didn't want that here. They wanted all men to have the ability to defend themselves, not just from crime, but from tyranny.

VNC74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's get the facts straight about the 2nd
> > amendment. No where does it say that a
> "person"
> > has the right to own a gun. No where does it say
> a
> > state doesnt have the right to limit any single
> > persons access to guns
> >
> > What it does talk about is state militias
> having
> > guns. This during a time when there was no US
> > Army...at a time when states were expected to
> > provide men to form a national army when
> needed.
> >
> > The recent Supreme Court decision tot he
> contrary
> > is anexample of an activist judicary gome
> amuck.
>
> 1st Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the
> people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Here, the right of the people means individual
> citizens in the US.
>
> 4th Amendment:
> 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.
>
> Here, the right of the people means individual
> citizens in the US.
>
> 9th Amendment:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> disparage others retained by the people.
>
> Here, people means individual citizens in the US.
>
> 10th Amendment:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the people.
>
> Here, people means individual citizens in the US.
>
> 17th Amendment:
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed
> of two Senators from each State, elected by the
> people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
> shall have one vote. The electors in each State
> shall have the qualifications requisite for
> electors of the most numerous branch of the State
> legislatures.
>
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any
> State in the Senate, the executive authority of
> such State shall issue writs of election to fill
> such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of
> any State may empower the executive thereof to
> make temporary appointments until the people fill
> the vacancies by election as the legislature may
> direct.
>
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to
> affect the election or term of any Senator chosen
> before it becomes valid as part of the
> Constitution.
>
> Here, elected by the people thereof means
> individual citizens in the respective state.
>
> 2nd Amendment:
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the
> security of a free State, the right of the People
> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
> Here, the right of the People means the right of
> members of the militia? Why the inconsistency?
> Why not just say that? You know the answer, it's
> because the right of the People doesn't mean
> anything different in this context. The founders
> wanted the right of each citizen to own weapons to
> be enumerated and protected, not restricted to
> members of the ruling class that were allowed into
> militias.
>
> Remember that for most of history, permission to
> own weapons was only granted to nobility. The
> lower classes were not allowed to have weapons,
> lest they use them to resist the will of the
> nobles and rulers. The founding fathers didn't
> want that here. They wanted all men to have the
> ability to defend themselves, not just from crime,
> but from tyranny.


The phrase "The People" appears 144 times in the Constitution. Why is it
that whenever liberals start to scream over the 2nd Amendment they always
seem to forget "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" applies
equally.

All that nonsense is in the context that the only kind of militia the Second Amendment expressly regards as consistent with security is a "well-regulated" militia. "well-regulated"...as in controls....gun controls.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All that nonsense is in the context that the only
> kind of militia the Second Amendment expressly
> regards as consistent with security is a
> "well-regulated" militia. "well-regulated"...as
> in controls....gun controls.

Try again:

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Source:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All that nonsense is in the context that the only
> kind of militia the Second Amendment expressly
> regards as consistent with security is a
> "well-regulated" militia. "well-regulated"...as
> in controls....gun controls.

"The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
"Well regulated" pertains to the militia organization and not the arms
themselves.

Vince, you are an idiot. Fortunately, you are not going to be nominated
for the Supreme Court anytime soon.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All that nonsense is in the context that the only
> kind of militia the Second Amendment expressly
> regards as consistent with security is a
> "well-regulated" militia. "well-regulated"...as
> in controls....gun controls.


You fucking retard.

V is the one on the left. and thats his coach on the right
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All that nonsense is in the context that the only
> kind of militia the Second Amendment expressly
> regards as consistent with security is a
> "well-regulated" militia. "well-regulated"...as
> in controls....gun controls.

For Vince (and others like him) it is the convenient ability to have a suspension of belief to justify their BS. For instance:

Quote

4th Amendment:

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.

This is the one everyone screams about when they talk about the Patriot Act. Lets see why that is.

"...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

against this clause:

"...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."

Layman's Analysis (I am not a legal scholar):

1. Probable cause

Widely interpreted to mean any number of things depending upon the circumstance. If they cannot prove they had probable cause, any evidence found will likely be suppressed or the case dismissed. In issuance of a warrant, many times it will be denied without solid probable cause to be determined by the person responsible for issuing the warrant - usually a judge.

2. particular description of the place to be searched

They must be specific in what the warrant is for - so they can't just say "hey, we know he is running drugs so we just want to toss his whole house and see what kind of stuff he has there." In the case of the Patriot Act they "slightly" suspended the use of judges in processing wiretap and other related requests in particular regarding a specific phone number being used - they stretched it to allow for (in potential terrorist related instances to out of country phone numbers, and inline with existing laws regarding organized crime) any phones used by a person.

3. person or things to be seized

Drugs, equipment, a terrorist, Vince, etc... But it has to be specific as well.

The law gave them the ability to request documents from libraries and other establishments without having a formal warrant issued by a judge. Both of which seem to be at issue with 1 - not having a formal warrant per se, and 2 - grabbing records from a library to look through for "possible" clues.

All of this of course "...supported by Oath or affirmation..." which back then meant a lot more than today. If you were determined to be a man of no honor back then, or an Oath-breaker, your Oath wasn't worth shit (usually sworn on the Bible or "Before God").

The 2nd Amendment, like the others, has a pre-clause or premise, and then a clause that is justified or the subject of that premise. So they would State a Fact, or premise in the first part, and then note all the rights or rules that must be followed that came from the acknowledgment of the premise.

4th Amendment:

"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."

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the 4th Amendment, no warrant-less search and seizure without probable cause and clear descriptions of the place and items or persons you are looking for.

In the 2nd Amendment, people have the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.

Does that mean I believe we should all run around with AK-47s? No. But can I OWN an AK-47? I should be allowed to if I want within the limitations of mental capacity, prior felonies, etc.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> V is the one on the left. and thats his coach on
> the right


not funny..if you cant make a comment without belittling those who struggle every day...shame on you.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

everyone has the right to be made fun of. if you are NOT ALLOWED to make fun of certain people because they cant help it i would say that is belittling. saying that you shouldnt make fun of someone means you feel sorry for them. i think being emotionally callous is way better than feeling sorry for others "misfortunes". it doesnt make them feel better knowing that you feel bad or sorry for them. so make fun of retards so they can be just like everyone else.

Another nut job with guns.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> everyone has the right to be made fun of. if you
> are NOT ALLOWED to make fun of certain people
> because they cant help it i would say that is
> belittling. saying that you shouldnt make fun of
> someone means you feel sorry for them. i think
> being emotionally callous is way better than
> feeling sorry for others "misfortunes". it doesnt
> make them feel better knowing that you feel bad or
> sorry for them. so make fun of retards so they can
> be just like everyone else.


That's a very sad explanation..I hope you reconsider in the future.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bloody blisters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > V is the one on the left. and thats his coach
> on
> > the right
>
>
> not funny..if you cant make a comment without
> belittling those who struggle every day...shame on
> you.


Don't change the subject you fucking retard.

The bottomline for me on this issue is that I believe the amount of guns and ammo in the hands of law abiding citizens is way beyond the need to protect oneself and family...hunting and even collecting antique or unusual guns. Owning an arsenal of guns and ammo is a symptom of some larger issue which unfortunately often results in the loss of human life.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Owning an arsenal of guns and ammo is a symptom of some
> larger issue which unfortunately often results in
> the loss of human life.


Prove it, you retard.

VNC74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's get the facts straight about the 2nd
> > amendment. No where does it say that a
> "person"
> > has the right to own a gun. No where does it say
> a
> > state doesnt have the right to limit any single
> > persons access to guns
> >
> > What it does talk about is state militias
> having
> > guns. This during a time when there was no US
> > Army...at a time when states were expected to
> > provide men to form a national army when
> needed.
> >
> > The recent Supreme Court decision tot he
> contrary
> > is anexample of an activist judicary gome
> amuck.
>
> 1st Amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the
> people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Here, the right of the people means individual
> citizens in the US.
>
> 4th Amendment:
> 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.
>
> Here, the right of the people means individual
> citizens in the US.
>
> 9th Amendment:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> disparage others retained by the people.
>
> Here, people means individual citizens in the US.
>
> 10th Amendment:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the people.
>
> Here, people means individual citizens in the US.
>
> 17th Amendment:
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed
> of two Senators from each State, elected by the
> people thereof, for six years; and each Senator
> shall have one vote. The electors in each State
> shall have the qualifications requisite for
> electors of the most numerous branch of the State
> legislatures.
>
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any
> State in the Senate, the executive authority of
> such State shall issue writs of election to fill
> such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of
> any State may empower the executive thereof to
> make temporary appointments until the people fill
> the vacancies by election as the legislature may
> direct.
>
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to
> affect the election or term of any Senator chosen
> before it becomes valid as part of the
> Constitution.
>
> Here, elected by the people thereof means
> individual citizens in the respective state.
>
> 2nd Amendment:
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the
> security of a free State, the right of the People
> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
> Here, the right of the People means the right of
> members of the militia? Why the inconsistency?
> Why not just say that? You know the answer, it's
> because the right of the People doesn't mean
> anything different in this context. The founders
> wanted the right of each citizen to own weapons to
> be enumerated and protected, not restricted to
> members of the ruling class that were allowed into
> militias.
>
> Remember that for most of history, permission to
> own weapons was only granted to nobility. The
> lower classes were not allowed to have weapons,
> lest they use them to resist the will of the
> nobles and rulers. The founding fathers didn't
> want that here. They wanted all men to have the
> ability to defend themselves, not just from crime,
> but from tyranny.

You're stupid.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottomline for me on this issue is that I
> believe the amount of guns and ammo in the hands
> of law abiding citizens is way beyond the need to
> protect oneself and family...hunting and even
> collecting antique or unusual guns. Owning an
> arsenal of guns and ammo is a symptom of some
> larger issue which unfortunately often results in
> the loss of human life.


If he really wanted to take out a bunch of people and risk dying in the process, he'd have made a bomb. Those Columbine kids make propane ones but they just happened to use a certain kiddie cartoon alarm clock that didn't have a certain piece of metal needed to detonate them.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesnt the 2nd Amendment guarantee every white man
> a girlfriend also? Or is it a gun....to
> substitute for a girlfriend?
>
> http://news.aol.com/article/la-fitness-shooting-i
> n-collier-township/603649


do you want me to post a link of all of the angry black men who have commited crimes? because im pretty sure i can come up with a lot more links than you have...

Yuppie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're stupid.

No, you are.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottomline for me on this issue is that I
> believe the amount of guns and ammo in the hands
> of law abiding citizens is way beyond the need to
> protect oneself and family...hunting and even
> collecting antique or unusual guns.

pff... yeah, just wait until the zombies attack. i would like to point out that in the recent past, there were serious concerns of invasion of russians and before that the germans. yes, neither happened but they very well could have. if there was an invasion, i know i would want to be well armed.


> Owning an
> arsenal of guns and ammo is a symptom of some
> larger issue which unfortunately often results in
> the loss of human life.

such as?


i disagree with you on your view of guns especially in the constitution because it's been made clear the intent was for individuals to have weaponry of their own.

Quote
V
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

should everything go sideways in the government, i would prefer there be a war on the government as opposed to oppression and injustice the likes of which is alive in china, (now thanks to chavez) venezuela and many many other countries around the world.

---

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doesnt the 2nd Amendment guarantee every white
> man
> > a girlfriend also? Or is it a gun....to
> > substitute for a girlfriend?
> >
> >
> http://news.aol.com/article/la-fitness-shooting-i
> > n-collier-township/603649
>
>
> do you want me to post a link of all of the angry
> black men who have commited crimes? because im
> pretty sure i can come up with a lot more links
> than you have...



"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Now here is an angry white guy..not afraid to advocate the use of guns for retribution...with god's army ready to follow him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXcMjUeZci0&NR=1

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2009 10:28PM by Vince(1).