RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nosathro -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 10:44:35 AM)
Something to consider http://autos.aol.com/article/gun-deaths-will-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015-study-says/

MrRodgers -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 10:58:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads. Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns..... ...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads. It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear. The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right? Being [a] so-called militia or a member thereof...IS the condition under which one's right to bear arms...could not be infringed. So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms. A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia.

PeonForHer -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 11:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I loathe them... Has it occurred to you that feelings like this (and clearly you are not alone) make someone's input on gun-control about as useful as the views of a white supremacist on race relations? K. No, that hadn't occurred to me because, to me, it's nonsense. However, if you want to explain why it makes sense to you, please do so.

YN -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 11:24:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And if anyone has any suggestions on dealing with wild hogs, I am open to hearing it. What is being done all over the US is not having much impact. Our feral pigs are normally ridden down with horses and lances. They stay out of the woods and jungle because jaguars really like eating pigs. My lance is about three meters long, the blade is about a half meter of spring steel and "leaf" shaped. While sport hunting is prohibited, they are not consider game animals and anyone can kill them any way they can, and the meat goes to those killing them, normally a quarter goes to the priest for the poor, and the rest gets roasted at a party.

Moonhead -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 12:11:15 PM)
The party could be seen as noblesse oblige: the upkeep on a horse is a lot more than you'll pay for a shotgun, after all.

YN -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 12:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The party could be seen as noblesse oblige: the upkeep on a horse is a lot more than you'll pay for a shotgun, after all. We maintain the horses anyway, and the feral pigs are very serious trouble that needs to be dealt with, and have been since the first one jumped off the Spanish ship 500 years ago. There was a reason boar hunting regularly went on in Europe years ago. But in our environment, catching up with them is the hard part, they are intelligent animals and know when they are hunted, you likely could kill one with a .22 pistol as easily as the lance, once you ride up on it. A lance kills one very quickly if used properly., and does not damage the flesh like a powerful firearm does.

vincentML -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 1:15:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads. Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns..... ...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads. It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear. The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right? Being [a] so-called militia or a member thereof...IS the condition under which one's right to bear arms...could not be infringed. So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms. A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. The 2nd Amendment is archaic. The US Department of Defense and the US Military have superceded the need for a militia. The whole pro gun argument is based on a useless Amendment. As archaic as Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 which empowers Congress to build post roads. FFS!!

Moonhead -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 1:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The party could be seen as noblesse oblige: the upkeep on a horse is a lot more than you'll pay for a shotgun, after all. We maintain the horses anyway, and the feral pigs are very serious trouble that needs to be dealt with, and have been since the first one jumped off the Spanish ship 500 years ago. There was a reason boar hunting regularly went on in Europe years ago. But in our environment, catching up with them is the hard part, they are intelligent animals and know when they are hunted, you likely could kill one with a .22 pistol as easily as the lance, once you ride up on it. A lance kills one very quickly if used properly., and does not damage the flesh like a powerful firearm does. Which is definitely going to be a plus if you fancy a barbecue later...

imdoingitagain -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 1:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads. Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns..... ...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads. It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear. The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right? Being [a] so-called militia or a member thereof...IS the condition under which one's right to bear arms...could not be infringed. So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms. A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. There's obviously going to be no discussing this with you...

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 1:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is.

imdoingitagain -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 2:05:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is. See, now, you have legitimized his earlier statement which has no basis and he'll consider that a victory. I refuse to do such. His entire premise is based off of a "fact" which isn't even true.

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 2:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is. See, now, you have legitimized his earlier statement which has no basis and he'll consider that a victory. I refuse to do such. His entire premise is based off of a "fact" which isn't even true. Doesn't matter. His own argument destroys any gun control advocacy he makes. This statement of his - So if I am not in [the] militia and not a part of what is necessary for the protection of that 'free state' then I do NOT have an unabridged right to keep and bear arms - is facially false as he cannot be anything but one of The People. To state otherwise is a baseless claim. I applaud his victory[:D]

mnottertail -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 2:27:08 PM)
Hey, bad arguments or not a gun control law does not violate the 2nd amendment. Nevertheless, still much ado about nothing.

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 2:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Hey, bad arguments or not a gun control law does not violate the 2nd amendment. Nevertheless, still much ado about nothing. You recognize a bad argument? I'm shocked[8D] (think I'd better go lay down for a spell. I'm feeling faint[8D])

mnottertail -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 2:48:53 PM)
Sure, I read your lame shit all the time.[8D]

Nosathro -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 2:49:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is. So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 3:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is. So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 From Wiki - ... Some of the ways the term is used include: The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation. Nothing has changed. The Militia is. Your protestations being an infringement by device.

mnottertail -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 3:14:35 PM)
Well, under the first two we are fucked. The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. No draft. The third definition is iffy as well. You are hurting the fuck outta that argument, you are gonna fuck around and get us all caught, Yachtie.

Nosathro -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 3:41:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is. So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 From Wiki - ... Some of the ways the term is used include: The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation. Nothing has changed. The Militia is. Your protestations being an infringement by device. You are using defenitions of words...not law....two different things...I am not protesting..I am proving my arguement..and done so successfully.[sm=boxer.gif]

Nosathro -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/31/2013 3:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers A word is not a statement. The courts inescapably therefore are arguing that everybody is in the militia. There is simply no other interpretation possible without bastardizing the meaning of militia. Fine. As you wish. As the Militia is comprised of The People, being unqualified generally and therefore includes the whole, it cannot, under any construct, be de-legitimatized as such would be an infringement. There is no argument possible to say the Militia does not exist. As an aside, because of the nature of the Militia, the Gun Control Act of 1934 and subsequent are null and void. The Militia, whether organized or unorganized, is not a club one joins. It just is. So wrong, Militia of the past were not just bunch of gun owners meeting, they were sanitioned by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 Currently there are no State sanctioned militias, just gun owners meeting some of them under questionable purposes such as the San Diego Minute Men, now defuct. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/summer/blunt-force http://www.catholicleague.org/san-diego-minutemen-harass-catholics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 From Wiki - ... Some of the ways the term is used include: The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation. Nothing has changed. The Militia is. Your protestations being an infringement by device. You are using defenitions of words...not law....two different things...I am not protesting..I am proving my arguement..and done so successfully.[sm=boxer.gif] Now I have to go the welfare office and get my food stamps then get some T-bone steaks.....

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02