chess online
| ||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
soulcrates 30-Sep-06, 11:56 |
 Yes Jaymar, alcohol and firearms don't mix. |
|||||||||||
|
Jeff >you cannot equate well-regulated with well-trained. if they are not well-regulated, they are not a militia, but a bunch of well-trained individuals.< There's a lot more discussion about militias in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers but George Mason states the meaning quite succinctly: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 30-Sep-06, 13:14 |
|
|||||||||||
|
thump also, 1788 was a long time ago...should it remain always the same way. they also counted black males as 2/5ths of a white man in those days...should that too remain unchanged? |
|||||||||||
|
Jeff should we be more inclusive or less inclusive of individual rights than they were in 1788? You can also refer to the 10th amendment for further guidance. The concept you are touching on is called 'prior restraint'. This means that you can't have something because you 'may' abuse it or havent proven that you've 'earned' it. Buying into this mindset is simply abdicating your rights to another and turning that right into a privilege, to be bestowed or removed at anothers whim. Bad idea in my opinion. |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 30-Sep-06, 20:24 |
Deleted by alexwilson on 30-Sep-06, 20:30.
|
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 30-Sep-06, 20:32 |
Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the Government can prevent felons from possessing guns? Seems to be a nice right for some people, not for others. |
|||||||||||
|
Alex Nope >Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the Government can prevent felons from possessing guns?< Nowhere >Seems to be a nice right for some people, not for others.< Yep I hope I've answered your astute questions as fully as they deserve. |
|||||||||||
|
soulcrates 30-Sep-06, 21:13 |
Personally, if felons weren't given 3 hots and a cot. |
|||||||||||
|
Oh goody! As much as I respect you, I disagree with you on this one, soulcrates. At least, I strongly disagree with your wording.. Because it isn't the punishments we refuse which *create* the crimes. Society isn't responsible for the criminals, just as the USA isn't responsible for the terrorists. And just to make things even more controversial: promiscuity isn't responsible for abortions. |
|||||||||||
|
soulcrates 30-Sep-06, 22:30 |
Pawn, |
|||||||||||
|
Well Ill try Anyhow, in the beginning, people started being criminals. It became even easier to crime with the introduction of guns. Eventually people started coming up with punishments. Hammurabi said eye for an eye and hence hands were getting chopped off and adulterous wives were thrown into the river. Then a bunch of different things happened. Then, more recently, we started locking people up instead of mutilating them. And still there is crime. We've tried all that, and nothing is working. You think murder for everything would solve the problem? As far as terrorists, same story. People have been fighting long before we came along. Pregnancy? Well, maybe promiscuity does cause abortion. Although in this day and age birth control helps. |
|||||||||||
|
Also |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 16:42 |
Thumper The fact is, the Second Amendment really doesn't mean a whole lot more than what it says. If you don't believe me, take your personal arsenal down to Times Square and tell some cop what is in your trunk. If you live closer to Chicago, go there. I think I know what would happen in L.A., but California is an unusual place. See what happens. The Federal Government does not give you the right to possess a firearm. They merely stay out of the discussion which is left up to the State and Local Authorities. The fact is your "right" to a firearm can be and is rigorously controlled by State and Local Authorities. They figure out who is old enough to have a firearm, who can have one because of their criminal record, or lack thereof, where you can have it, how much ammo you can carry and where you can carry it. Where your firearm must be stored and how it must be stored. etc, etc.... The reason State and Local Authorities have this power is because life in an urban environment would be impossible with everyone packing heat. No one wants to live in "Dodge City." When the west was one, one of the first things they did is disarm everyone in public. Life would be intolerable if everyone carried a firearm. You do have a right to live in a safe environment. Felons don't have guns because there is no right to own a gun. End of argument. |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 16:43 |
I wish we could go back and edit stuff. |
|||||||||||
|
soulcrates 01-Oct-06, 18:39 |
Whose side would you be on, alex? |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 18:41 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Alex Good, then I didn't waste my time. Where do you read that you have a right to >live without the fear<? Fear is an emotion for you to control or not. The Declaration of Independence says that you have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happyness. Not to 'feel' safe. >...take your personal arsenal down to Times Square and tell some cop what is in your trunk.< Why? Are you saying that I should go challenge a policeman to a deadly encounter in order to somehow 'prove' my right to weapons ownership? That's too goofy to even answer. Don't make me start belittling points again. Grrr I understand that you don't want people to have weapons. That's OK. I disagree with you. If you're comfortable with only the government having force or the coercion of force. That's OK. I disagree with you. I'm just thankfull that you don't have the ability to act on your beliefs... |
|||||||||||
|
I would be We did them wrong and everyone knows it. Fight for the underdog! |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 20:09 |
Living in fear is not the pursuit of hapiness. The purpose of good Government is to create a good environment to raise children. The childish joy you feel in blasting beer cans in the woods is emphemeral and fleeting compared to the joy of raising a well adjusted brood of children. A hail of gunfire from some nutcase could put your whole family in jeopardy. I didn't ask you to pick a fight with or threaten a policeman. Just drive to Times Square and tell him what is in your trunk and see what happens. (the private owership of firearms is largely illegal in Manhattan if you didn't know). I never said that owning weapons is wrong. I only told you that you have no right to own weapons. The government can take you out if they want to anyway, and darned quick, whether you are armed or not. If you don't believe me, Google "Ruby Ridge" and see what happens when gun nuts think they can take on the Government. I'll give you a hint, there is a lot of crying and whining afterwards. |
|||||||||||
|
Pawn... yes, but... Suppose Native Americans said that we wronged them and everyone had to pay a certain percentage of their pay to the Native Americans from now on. Should we all agree to that in order to make amends? Suppose Native Americans said that we wronged them and everyone from now on had to live under a "Native American Council" (new government- theirs of course). Should we all agree to that in order to make amends? Suppose the Native Americans said that we wronged them and that all "non-Native Americans" had to leave the country in order to make amends. Should we agree to that in order to make harmony? Or, is there some form of "redress" that would make it ok for us to all be treated as equal and move on from here? Then they could join the current society? This is not a silly matter... they were plundered, pure and simple. The strong took from the weaker. But, we are here now... what is fair to be done about it, if anything at all? |
|||||||||||
|
Well, some steps At the moment there doesn't seem to be any news about native americans being too pissed off. I'm sure there is a lot of anger from the poverty they are suffering from what has happened. More recently the Hawaiians have been having an identical struggle. They were also conquered but not by Europeans, it was the US. Now the reparation debate is happening, and it's very difficult. Native Hawaiians are trying to get rights, but nobody can agree on anything, half of the natives are happy and half are not happy about this en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">-> en.wikipedia.org |
|||||||||||
|
soulcrates 01-Oct-06, 20:26 |
It seems to me alex, |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 20:37 |
I'm only about 10% Native American (Cherokee Nation), so as usual, it would be an unfair fight. |
|||||||||||
|
soulcrates 01-Oct-06, 20:43 |
Good one. |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 20:49 |
|
|||||||||||
|
soulcrates 01-Oct-06, 21:03 |
The Washington Redskins |
|||||||||||
|
Alex But wait, you have the right to PURSUE happyness. I have a gun so you're not happy I have a gun and I'm happy Your rights stop where mine begins. Works for me. Actually, I CAN be armed in Manhattan. I have no right to own weapons? Wrong! You think me an adolescent or a young adult? I'm older than you are Alex, with my own family. I drink very little and never drink when I shoot. When I'm not shooting competition, my favorite target is animal crackers. (feeds the birds and squirrels when I leave) I never shoot bottles and I always clean-up when I'm done. One man obviously can't stop the full-on assault of an entire government, but if standard SWAT raiding tactics are used in an illegal confiscation campaign, a few less guys would be going home that night. I'm well versed in the attack against the Weaver family in Idaho. Shooting a 13 year old boy in the back as he's running home, then shooting a nursing mother holding her baby is not the same as going against someone who has the same skills and training. >A hail of gunfire from some nutcase could put your whole family in jeopardy.<!?! Man, where do you get your information from anyway? |
|||||||||||
|
alexwilson 02-Oct-06, 03:55 |
Thumper Anyone who thinks they have a right to barracade themselves in their house and tote a bunch of guns around and shoot at the authorities is putting their families at risk. I don't understand how you as a responsible gun owner would get all moist eyed if some 13 year old shoots at the authorites and then gets dropped when he runs for his barracade. Getting ma's face shot away is the risk you take when you wander around in a barracaded house with a bunch of gun nuts. I feel sorry for the guy who shot her. Talk about being thrust into a ridiculous situation. I am usually very sympathetic to people who file lawsuits, but you behave like that and then cry and whine after your son and wife get shot.... You have to take a modicum of responsibility upon yourself when you behave irresponsibly and get what is coming your way. They should have charged Mr. Weaver with the murder of his wife. He would if they were robbing a bank. Its called the felony murder rule. If anyone dies when you are committing a felony, its a murder and its your fault. You watch the news. You are aware that a man in Colorado went into a school last week, raped two school girls, barracaded himself in the school and shot a 16 year old girl to death when the police move in to stop him. Why can't you percieve this as a potential threat to your family? You have no right to own weapons because you can be told you can't have them. If you had a true right to bear arms, you and anyone else could have one everywhere and every time. You could go to the ballgame with a gun. |
|||||||||||
|
Alex It's clear from your distorted narative of events that you are not. I could educate you but I doubt that you really care. It's quite telling that you would gleefully support illegally killing people under 'color of law' because you disagree with them. It's also clear from your comments that you have little or no understanding of constitutional law. This is not surprizing considering your point of view. 'The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Neither can there be any penalties or sanctions placed apon it.' >You watch the news.< Not much and rarely for 'facts'. Highly filtered information delivered by a talking head is little more than entertainment/propaganda. I prefer to get information from as close to the source as possible. >Why can't you percieve this as a potential threat to your family?< Why do you ask this? You seem to think the government should disarm us with deadly force so what does it matter to you that I perceive some murderer who killed himself half-way across the country as a threat to my family? Is it so important to you that we live in fear like you do? |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Log in 
