Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead - Page 31

HisIsTheCrown · #**451** Jul 25, '12, 2:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost_Sheep

Created to kill? Maybe. Created to kill people? Not necessarily.

If you don't want one, don't buy.

I don't necessarily feel I MUST have one. I just feel safer having one.

If I had to talk to you I would feel safer bearing a machine-gun.

HisIsTheCrown · #**452** Jul 25, '12, 2:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gift from God

Your Second Amendment also mentions a well-regulated militia, meaning gun control

Of course. BUT it seems that the USA Supreme Court does not understand that way. BUT The Supreme Court is appointed by the Presidents according to their whims and party, so it is not neutral.

HisIsTheCrown · #**453** Jul 25, '12, 2:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost_Sheep

Put it this way: If you are a gun owner, no explanation is necessary. If you are a gun hater, no explanation is possible.

I am not a gun hater, I am a gun-possessing hater hater.

HisIsTheCrown · #**454** Jul 25, '12, 2:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryjk

Meaning properly trained.

HisIsTheCrown · #**455** Jul 25, '12, 2:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete 29

My there sure are a lot of Canadians trying to get our guns on this thread. I SMELL AN INVASION!!!

our guns ??? which guns ???

Scott_Lafrance · #**456** Jul 25, '12, 2:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

No doot aboot it! They'll be comin' down on mooseback, ay?

Sauf pour les Québécois, qui qui sera déclarant leur indépendance par rapport au reste du Canada ........ nouveau.

Scott_Lafrance · #**457** Jul 25, '12, 3:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HisIsTheCrown

Before there were guns, there were free people too. Or did freedom start with gunpowder in the Middle Ages ?

Most of the civilizations who had the most freedom also had the least government.

Irony?

Lost_Sheep · #**458** Jul 25, '12, 4:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gift from God

Your Second Amendment also mentions a well-regulated militia, meaning gun control

In its entirety, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "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." Emphasis mine.

The anti-gun crowd is quick to point out the "well-regulated militia" part while conveniently ignoring the "necessary to the security" part. This ALLOWS people to be armed.

And BTW, nowhere does it mention the word "gun"; its says "arms" which could be any type of weapon.

Lost_Sheep · #**459** Jul 25, '12, 4:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete 29

My there sure are a lot of Canadians trying to get our guns on this thread. I SMELL AN INVASION!!!

Gee. An invasion by a country that does not believe in guns. This should be a very short war.

Scott_Lafrance · #**460** Jul 25, '12, 4:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost_Sheep

Gee. An invasion by a country that does not believe in guns. This should be a very short war.

They are going to invade with plugged shotguns. Three rounds max, no polymer stocks, no pistol grips, no barrel lights, waterfowl barrels only.

scipio337 · #**461** Jul 25, '12, 5:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by curlycool89

It's why you utterly insist on keeping the guns. Taking a gun away from a man is seen as emasculating him, Scott even said it takes away his freedom. Obviously that can't be true because freedom is a state not dependent on material goods, so you must be thinking of guns as giving you something you didn't have without it; a psychological condition since it doesn't make any sense whatsoever philosophically.

So my masculinity is why I insist on keeping guns? That seems like a pretty broad leap, considering you've never met me, and less than charitable.

scipio337 · #**462** Jul 25, '12, 5:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringil

THis is totally unrelated but who is that guy as your avatar. He looks grim.

More of a fan of the actor than the character he played: Oliver Reed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Reed

He was a rare one.

scipio337 · #**463** Jul 25, '12, 5:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete 29

Actually, Great Britain forcing US citizens to serve in their navy is what started the war. Also, if you're going to quote United States history ( you notice I didn't say American history because I know that upsets some Canadians) you should try to get it right. Our national anthem is based on the battle of Fort Mc Henry that occurred during the Chesapeake invasion which is when Washington D.C. was burned. You are confusing it with the battle of New Orleans which was indeed after the treaty was signed.

Spot on. There was also the Chesapeake affair, and the British Orders in Council limiting US trade with France, but we did have some expanionist ideas.

I would imagine China siezing US shipping vessels and forcing US seamen into service with the PLAN wouldn't go over well today.

scipio337 · #**464** Jul 25, '12, 5:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HisIsTheCrown

If I had to talk to you I would feel safer bearing a machine-gun.

You do realize that you would need at least a Type 3 Federal Firearms License, which requires a heavy fee (in some cases, $3,000 and up), and a very thorough background check by the BATF?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html

Some have the misconception that the average Joe can just buy a machine gun on a whim.

scipio337 · #**465** Jul 25, '12, 5:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost_Sheep

In its entirety, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "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." Emphasis mine.

The anti-gun crowd is quick to point out the "well-regulated militia" part while conveniently ignoring the "necessary to the security" part. This ALLOWS people to be armed.

And BTW, nowhere does it mention the word "gun"; its says "arms" which could be any type of weapon.

In the parlance of the time, "regulated" meant "trained". We can begin to deduce what "well-regulated" meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

Quote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed29.htm