• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Should .50 Caliber rifles be banned?

should they be banned?

  • yes, they should be banned

    Votes: 9 30.0%
  • no, they should be legal

    Votes: 21 70.0%

  • Total voters
    30
devildog88 said:
KelJu said:
I am not mis-informed. I have a different interpretation.

Just Curious, since when do we let individuals interpret the Constitution of the United States?

We don't, which is why guns are legal. :p

The point you just made is exactly how I feel about it, but in a different respect. Since when do people have the right to decide that the Bill of Rights isn't good enough?
It is exactly the same reason I feel that people lobbying to have guns banned should shut the fuck up and sit down.
 
Obviously we wouldn't want fire arms to be banned. However the opinion of our government is split into seperate camps. The literal interpreters and the implied interpreters. The battle wages on, adn as a Civics teacher I can see the point each side is making. THe constitution is a living document and thanks to the elastic clause Congress can apply it as they see fit. This in itself is another argument.
 
Dale Mabry said:
Is that question rheotrical?
RHEO- TO FLOW
TRICAL - AS IN TRICKLE? So is this where your pee is just barely a trickle because topolo gave you anothe STD?
 
maniclion said:
RHEO- TO FLOW
TRICAL - AS IN TRICKLE? So is this where your pee is just barely a trickle because topolo gave you anothe STD?


We use condoms
 
topolo said:
and valtrex
Don't forget the steady dose of doxycycline for the chlamydia.
 
maniclion said:
Don't forget the steady dose of doxycycline for the chlamydia.


Yeah, don't leave that out.
 
Robert DiMaggio said:
and I care?

No, I doubt that you would.

People with such ill-informed opinions rarely care about much, seeing as they are more than willing to show their ignorance than exert their brain or do some research.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
clemson357 said:
No, I doubt that you would.

People with such ill-informed opinions rarely care about much, seeing as they are more than willing to show their ignorance than exert their brain or do some research.

:eek:
 
clemson357 said:
No, I doubt that you would.

People with such ill-informed opinions rarely care about much, seeing as they are more than willing to show their ignorance than exert their brain or do some research.

:banned:
 
topolo said:
and valtrex
See now I know you're lying because I saw the commercial last night and in bold fine print at the bottom it said.
Valtrex reduces the risk of heterosexual transmission of genital herpes.:finger:
 
maniclion said:
See now I know you're lying because I saw the commercial last night and in bold fine print at the bottom it said.
Valtrex reduces the risk of heterosexual transmission of genital herpes.:finger:

When Dale wears panties I consider that heterosexual.
 
I've a very simple solutions for the dilemma of whether or not people should have guns:

Separate everyone into two groups, those who support gun ownership and those that do not. Then, have them pick their weapons of choice and fight it out. The winners get their way.
 
DOMS said:
I've a very simple solutions for the dilemma of whether or not people should have guns:

Separate everyone into two groups, those who support gun ownership and those that do not. Then, have them pick their weapons of choice and fight it out. The winners get their way.

I have a better idea.

If you don't believe in civilian gun ownership, move to England or Australia. England effectively banned civilian gun ownership in 1997, and violent crime skyrocketed 56% in one year. Believe it or not, criminals don't obey gun laws, AND they prefer disarmed victims.
 
clemson357 said:
I have a better idea.

If you don't believe in civilian gun ownership, move to England or Australia. England effectively banned civilian gun ownership in 1997, and violent crime skyrocketed 56% in one year. Believe it or not, criminals don't obey gun laws, AND they prefer disarmed victims.
You sure soccer doesn't have anything to do with that?

url
 
devildog88 said:
[Just Curious, since when do we let individuals interpret the Constitution of the United States?
You just did! Who is the militia?? We the common individiuals are. That is the way it was intended to be. The constitution does guarentee us a right to own guns. Sorry you see things different. I'm glad you advocate ownership of guns though.


I love all you liberals.............It's just like athiests. When things go all wrong, the first person they call on is God!
Where is Albob when you need him????????????????????????
 
dg806 said:
You just did! Who is the militia?? We the common individiuals are. That is the way it was intended to be. The constitution does guarentee us a right to own guns. Sorry you see things different. I'm glad you advocate ownership of guns though.


I love all you liberals.............It's just like athiests. When things go all wrong, the first person they call on is God!
Where is Albob when you need him????????????????????????

You have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I teach American government and the arguement is being made that if we don't interpret the constitution then it is rather clear that the average joe is not given the right to bear arms. The second amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is soley for a "well regulated militia" In most cases a "militia" does not exsist today. It has been replaced by the national Guard. Case in point is how the federal government delt with the "freedmen" in Montana. They went in and dismantled them. On another point you have mistakenly stereotyped me as a liberal when in fact I am a red blooded republican. I may not be as conservative as many of the GOP members but identify with the elephant I do! This is a great arguement that often recruits even the most reserved students and elicits a heated opinion. :clapping:
 
devildog88 said:
You have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I teach American government and the arguement is being made that if we don't interpret the constitution then it is rather clear that the average joe is not given the right to bear arms. The second amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is soley for a "well regulated militia" In most cases a "militia" does not exsist today. It has been replaced by the national Guard. Case in point is how the federal government delt with the "freedmen" in Montana. They went in and dismantled them. On another point you have mistakenly stereotyped me as a liberal when in fact I am a red blooded republican. I may not be as conservative as many of the GOP members but identify with the elephant I do! This is a great arguement that often recruits even the most reserved students and elicits a heated opinion. :clapping:


I respect both your opinion and candor, but I do not agree with your logic. My high school Government/Civics teacher had a completely different interpretation of the second amendment as you, so you can't use your job title as an appeal to higher authority. That is one of the most common logical fallacies. You are saying that the government decided that because we now have a government paid and regulated National Guard, that the average American doesn't necessarily have the right to bare arms anymore.
I do not agree with that statement.
Firstly, "well regulated militia" is not equivalent to "national guard".
Because, a well regulated militia is not government regulated. If you look up the word "militia", Webster plainly explains exactly that.

A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings:

An official reserve army, composed of citizens
The national police forces in Russia, and other CIS countries, and the Soviet Union: Militia
The entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government

The government does not have the authority to tell us that we can't start a militia. People today are pussies, and have let the government convince them that they can't, but the Bill of Rights, plainly states that we can.
This leads me to one of my all time personal grievances with Americans. When are we going to stop being pussy ass little bitches, and start telling our congressman, senators, and president that what they think doesn't fucking matter, and what the constitution says, and what we say does. We have let our representatives think that they have become more powerful than us. They are supposed to be representing us, but instead are telling us what to think. This makes me very sad and pissed off.


When the Bill of Rights was created, we had just fought our way out of oppression and unfair government control. As a safeguard to keep this from ever happening again, amendments such as the second were included into the constitution to allow citizens to have a way to fight back when they felt the government was getting over controlling.

I believe that the second amendment was put into place specifically for these days. I do not trust the government one fucking bit. Lately I have seen judges let child rapist go with out a day of jail time, I have seen our courts let white-collar criminal businessmen rape the financial future of every worker of their company without a fucking day of jail time, I have seen our courts send young adults to jail for 10 years or more for smoking something that grew out of the ground, I have seen our police beat the shit out of people for being the wrong color, I have seen politicians be indicated on charges of embezzlement and ethical violation just to only serve probation and then run for office again, and I have seen the middle class do the brunt of the work in this country so that the government and big business could work out deals to keep each other in power and take advantage of us every day of our lives.

The rest of Americans can trust them if they want to, and give their you guns with the rest of their civil liberties and rights. But as Charles Heston said, "from my cold dead hands".
 
It is important to understand that a well regulated militia was nessecary in 1776 in order to protect the state in which it resided. There was no national army persay. (even though the Marine Corps was born in 1775) It is in black and white:

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

So the question must be posed......does your state need protection from the government that rules our country? Is there a foriegn country that our armed forces can't protect you from? If so then you and your state have the right to raise a well regulated militia. If not, then the right to posses fire arms does not apply to you.


When you say that you believe the 2nd amendment was put into place specificly for these days you are being a bit narrow minded. Our forfathers could not have possibly forseen what 2006 would be like. That is why we have clauses like the elastic clause so that the Constitution may be applied to modern day events.

The beauty of this country is that it can change and adapt to modern times. The adaptations are not always going to be popular, nor is everyone going to support them. However we still do not restrict people's ability to leave the country if they are not happy.
 
devildog88 said:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.....

allow me to fill in the rest of that for you:

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.


Does it say the right of the militia, or the right of the people? I just want to make sure that I am reading it correctly, it does say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," doesn't it?

Also, you might be interested to know that the entire Bill of Rights is interpreted to secure the rights of the individual. They are individual rights. Period.
 
I have got some Devildog constitutional interpretation for you, lets do the fifth amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Thus, your individual right against double jeopardy, and self-incrimination is only applicable to capital crimes and infamous crimes. Therefore, if you have a low-profile crime such as drug possession, or speeding, or assault, or arguably even a murder that doesn't get 'infamous' press coverage, you can be tried over and over until the government convicts you, and you can be made to testify against yourself.
 
clemson357 said:
allow me to fill in the rest of that for you:

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.


Does it say the right of the militia, or the right of the people? I just want to make sure that I am reading it correctly, it does say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," doesn't it?

Also, you might be interested to know that the entire Bill of Rights is interpreted to secure the rights of the individual. They are individual rights. Period.

I am aware, as you are, that if you read the amendment in it's entirety that the meaning does not change. The second amendment was meant to provide a militia against a corrupt government or a foreign enemy. You are making the same mistake as many of my students do, in that you are letting you emotions get in the way of rational.

Rest assured nobody is going to try and take you cap gun away from you, nor are they going to get mine. Our government has ALLOWED the people to keep their firearms and has encouraged them to be proud of the fact that they can. Believe me I live in a society where people walk in to banks, and public businesses everyday with a sidearm strapped to their leg. I would love to see the government tell the people of the west that they couldn't have their rifle in their truck!

Your passion is noted.
 
clemson357 said:
I have got some Devildog constitutional interpretation for you, lets do the fifth amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Thus, your individual right against double jeopardy, and self-incrimination is only applicable to capital crimes and infamous crimes. Therefore, if you have a low-profile crime such as drug possession, or speeding, or assault, or arguably even a murder that doesn't get 'infamous' press coverage, you can be tried over and over until the government convicts you, and you can be made to testify against yourself.

This is why the constitution/bill of rights are not open to interpretation by the public. This is emotionally charged babble!
 
Devildog, I love how you portray your opinion as fact. When it comes down to it, you are focusing on one portion of the amendment and I am focusing on another. I have a sneaking suspicion that if this comes before the Supreme Court anytime soon they will be agreeing with me. If nothing else, for the sheer fact the Bill of Rights secures the rights of individuals. That is how every other amendment has been interpreted.

Further, I agree with you that the founding fathers could have never predicted what 2006 would be like. They could not have imagined what an M-16 was, much less have had an intent with respect to such a thing when drafting the 2nd amendment. They could never have imagined the internet, much less have had an intent with respect to such a thing when drafting the 1st amendment. See how that works?
 
I think canon's that shoot canon balls should be legal.. :shrug:


If someone breaks into the house, they'll never know what hit em'. :thumb:
 
clemson357 said:
Devildog, I love how you portray your opinion as fact. When it comes down to it, you are focusing on one portion of the amendment and I am focusing on another. I have a sneaking suspicion that if this comes before the Supreme Court anytime soon they will be agreeing with me. If nothing else, for the sheer fact the Bill of Rights secures the rights of individuals. That is how every other amendment has been interpreted.

Further, I agree with you that the founding fathers could have never predicted what 2006 would be like. They could not have imagined what an M-16 was, much less have had an intent with respect to such a thing when drafting the 2nd amendment. They could never have imagined the internet, much less have had an intent with respect to such a thing when drafting the 1st amendment. See how that works?


You act as if I want guns to be banned. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The simple fact is that they way the 2nd amendment is written and if it is to be taken literally, it does not give you , me, or anyone the right to bear arms just on the merit that we are citizens in the United States. Gun control in my opinion is useing two hands to fire your sidearm. I am, believe it or not with you and Mr Hetson in saying they can have mine when they pry it from my cold dead hands!

I do like playing the devil's advocate however, it seems to elicit some very emotional responses as it did from you.

Peace,
 
Back
Top