- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
devildog88 said:
No, the simple fact is that to make that assertion, you have to completely disregard basic principles of sentence construction.
-
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?
- Thread starter clemson357
- Start date
No, the simple fact is that to make that assertion, you have to completely disregard basic principles of sentence construction.
NO, people ARE guarenteed the right to bear arms. There is absolutely no interpretation to the constitution. It is peopel like you that try to make it mean something else. Militias do exist today and the government is scared of them. They know it interferes with their ability to do "as will". It is the militias that keep the government somewhat in check. When we don't have guns, the government will be the only ones to have them, and we have no means to fight back.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 It has been replaced by the national Guard.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.
At what point is a small firearm not "small" anymore?
is it OK for civilians to have AR-15s and AKs...M-16s?
IMO there is no reason for civilians to own such high powered 50cal firearms. No hunter needs that. Can you not use other firearms for recreation?
is it OK for civilians to have AR-15s and AKs...M-16s?
IMO there is no reason for civilians to own such high powered 50cal firearms. No hunter needs that. Can you not use other firearms for recreation?
My cock just exploded!
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
lnvanry said:
I don't need a .50 caliber, and you don't need a sports car or a flat panel TV. If it isn't hurting anyone, what difference does it make?
The fact of the matter is that one has never been used in a crime, ever. Further, I would be willing to bet that the kind of criminal that would pay the $7k retail would be able to get their hands on one whether they were legal or not.
Robert DiMaggio said:
I need a .50 to protect my private property from the GOVT!
lnvanry said:
When did the issue of firearms ownership become a matter of whats used for hunting or otherwise???
The 2nd amendment was created so that private citizens can
protect their own personal property, belongings, and way of life
from enemys, foreign and domestic.
And if a domestic enemy is a criminal, or a corrupt government force,
either local or federal. Then thats what I will use my firearms for!
(And I will use the ones that will win)
There should not be a limit on what you can have. Hunting has nothing to do with it. It is about your rights to have what you want.lnvanry said:
We already have restrictions of fully automatic weapons.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 11,622
- Reaction score
- 333
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 63
- Location
- An alternate reality.
Hey dg806, you remember that retirement present Becky promised to get me? Wildey's here.
Costs me about $2 every time I pull the trigger but DAMN is it fun!
P.S. It's been decided in more cases than I can count that the Second Amendment gurantees an INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. The militia question is irrelevant and has no bearing on how the amendment is interpreted. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of many, many federal courts up to and including the SCOTUS. Thank you and have a nice day.
Costs me about $2 every time I pull the trigger but DAMN is it fun!
P.S. It's been decided in more cases than I can count that the Second Amendment gurantees an INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. The militia question is irrelevant and has no bearing on how the amendment is interpreted. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of many, many federal courts up to and including the SCOTUS. Thank you and have a nice day.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Messages
- 813
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 59
dg806 said:
I agree, people are guarenteed the right to own firearms, that has been upheld and precedents have been set in the courts. My assertion was simply that the original authors of the constitution did not include this amendment so you could posses a .50 cal or any other cal. of firearm. It was designed to protect the state from enemies.
On another note, if you think the government is afraid of a militia or that they keep our government in check then you are dis-allusioned. They could erase your ass in a heart beat if they choose to.
Yep! Cool!ALBOB said:Hey dg806, you remember that retirement present Becky promised to get me? Wildey's here.
Costs me about $2 every time I pull the trigger but DAMN is it fun!
P.S. It's been decided in more cases than I can count that the Second Amendment gurantees an INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. The militia question is irrelevant and has no bearing on how the amendment is interpreted. That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of many, many federal courts up to and including the SCOTUS. Thank you and have a nice day.
I disagree. They did not put restrictions on it and never intended for there to be any restrictions.devildog88 said:
Like Ruby Ridge????
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 52
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
devildog88 said:
Incorrect. The goal was to protect the people from the government.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
DOMS said:
I can not see why other people are not getting this.
When the Bill of Rights was drafted, the Colonies had just won their independence from an oppressive controlling unfair government. I have had high school history teachers, and college history professors agree with me on this point, so stop using an appeal to higher authority of I am a civics teacher to make your point. There are very educated people who would say the second amendment was put into the constitution solely for the purpose of giving the people a way to fight back against an oppressive government. All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
Please for the love of god explain to me, why they would make the second amendment the only amendment that doesn't deal specifically with the individual?
It doesn't make since. Use you damn brains people.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 52
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
KelJu said:
People have forgotten that back then, the government wasn't just "by the people, for the people" it really was the people. Those leaders never wanted to see their country go back to the oppression they endured before.
They weren't perfect, but they were good.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 52
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
topolo said:
If you were perfect, you wouldn't let DoubleBase steal your avatar.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
topolo said:
Have you ever considered using the picture of you dressed as Dale's Bitch as your avatar? You have to admit, that would be pretty funny.
Similar threads
