What's your position on gun rights?

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last
  1. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Saurabh View Post
    Fair point that.

    While I definitely see your point of view I am disappointed that you think nothing can be done. It sounds kinda very pessimistic. Almost like nothing can be done in this case. If that is true(I beleive it is not) then why are we even having a discussion on this?



    You dont have any argument to make that suggestion in the first place!

    Lets compare USA to England. In certain areas of UK even the cops dont carry weapons, simple baton works for them. And guess what crime is quite low. So why would they like to carry the weapon in the first place?

    The whole idea of carrying gun is to act as a deterrent to crime.
    Actually, if you check the statistics, you will find that gun crime has been on the rise in England, despite its draconian gun control laws.

  2. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Saurabh View Post
    And that argument wont hold water since Gun laws have been around for close to 2 centuries and USA remains one of the most unsafest countries in the world(amongst the Developed Nations of course).
    I know it doesn't hold water, and you either missed or ignored my point: comparisons between the US and other countries using crime statistics alone are useless due to the massive number of variables. This is true no matter how many times you keep repeating yourself.

    All speculation. You can say this, I can say that, but in the ultimate end what is true is that a trained Marine who had license to carry firearms was killed. Now you can spin it any which way you like.
    Did she have a license to carry a firearm? I am not aware of that. In any case, she was killed in a private residence so no license would have been required.


    Because you are creating a situation where you are distrustful of everyone and anyone. You are scared of "what might happen" and advocate possessing guns to curtail that. Again I repeat, no other country has this issue, what is so bad about Americans that we need to carry weapons in our own Homeland??
    Because there are bad people out there who do bad things. And even though you like to blame the guns for this, the guns have nothing to do with it. Bad people have always and will always exist.

    Self defense is an inalienable right of all human beings, even though many governments infringe upon this right. Here in America, our government was designed to protect our rights, self defense included. One of the means by which this right is protected is the Second Amendment.

    Freedom is a dangerous thing. Many of the "safer" countries are "safer" because their government imposed far more restrictions on their freedoms. I'm sure that without the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, the US would be "safer." But you will not find many Americans who will trade liberty for safety in that manner.
  3. Registered User
    Xodus's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,902
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp View Post
    Freedom is a dangerous thing. Many of the "safer" countries are "safer" because their government imposed far more restrictions on their freedoms. I'm sure that without the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, the US would be "safer." But you will not find many Americans who will trade liberty for safety in that manner.

    Unfortunately it is becoming more and more prevalent, esp. in these 'post 9/11'/Patriot Act days.


    If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    James Madison

    There are plenty of sheeple that are all for it. I am not one.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Dadof2's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  260 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    36
    Posts
    663
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Xodus View Post
    Unfortunately it is becoming more and more prevalent, esp. in these 'post 9/11'/Patriot Act days.


    If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    James Madison

    There are plenty of sheeple that are all for it. I am not one.
    There are too many sheeple if you ask me, and they are quite dangerous to our freedoms. I suggest that we ammend the Constitution to make it illegal to be a sheeple in these United States.
  5. Registered User
    Xodus's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,902
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadof2 View Post
    There are too many sheeple if you ask me, and they are quite dangerous to our freedoms. I suggest that we ammend the Constitution to make it illegal to be a sheeple in these United States.

    Ok, any one that voted for Bush Sr., Baby W, or Clinton or is going to vote for McCain, Obama or Clinton leave the country immediately.
  6. Never enough
    Board Moderator
    EasyEJL's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    46
    Posts
    31,867
    Answers
    0

    you'll have to throw me out forcibly
    This space for rent

    Phenadrol Log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-hell-did.html - AMAZING fat loss results so far
  7. Registered User
    Dadof2's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  260 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    36
    Posts
    663
    Answers
    0

    Unless Ron Paul is on the ballot I will just show up and fart on the voting machine.
  8. Registered User
    Xodus's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,902
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadof2 View Post
    Unless Ron Paul is on the ballot I will just show up and fart on the voting machine.
    I'm voting for myself.
  9. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Dadof2 View Post
    Unless Ron Paul is on the ballot I will just show up and fart on the voting machine.
    Ron Paul's foreign policy would be a disaster for the US.

    Supreme Court appointments (there will be at least 1, probably 2 made by the next president) justifies holding your nose and voting for McCain.

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
  10. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,351
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    and short of declaring guns illegal entirely and attempting to round up and collect them all, it wouldn't work out regardless.

    And attempting to round them up wouldnt work either
    I agree completely
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  11. Registered User
    Nabisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,163
    Answers
    0

    I don't see how the Gun Control Law advocates can continue their path or logic after the post further above by Xodus. There are so many cases of lives being saved and criminals being thwarted by law abiding citizens carrying firearms that I can't even begin to see the other side of the argument.

    For example, and I'll summarize since I don't have the articles on hand.

    FL - Two men walked into a Subway, and one pulled out a gun demanding all the money behind the counter. They also herded all the customers into a corner and demanded all their money and jewelry. One man, age 68, remained seated at his table eating his sub and refused to give them him money. He was forcibly dragged from his table and a gun was placed to his head. The criminals once again demanded his money, and he once again refused. The first criminal then proceeded to scream at him and drag him towards the bathroom in the back, while telling the 68 year old man the details of how he was going to be killed. Once the criminal got him to the hallway in the back and shoved him ahead to the bathroom, the 68 year old man (a former marine), pulled his concealed handgun and placed one shot into the criminal's forehead, killing him instantly. He then marched back into the main area of the store and rattled off three more rounds at the second criminal as the criminal attempted to make a getaway. Two of those three rounds struck home and the responding police were able to track the criminal by his blood trail.

    Without that concealed firearm, that man's life would have ended because of some punk who decided to rob a subway. Instead he stopped a crime in process, and successfully defended his own life. Who are we to take that inalienable right away from another person? The basic, simplistic right to defend one's life is not ours to take away. If you choose not to carry or own a firearm, so be it, no one is forcing you to have one. But what gives you the authority to remove that right from other people?

    With gun control laws, I would not be legally allowed to obtain a firearm for protection. Some advocates claim that I could defend my life and property with a knife or a baseball bat instead. Well look how well that worked for Redskin's safety Shaun Taylor. He had a machete, and was gunned down by some punk kid in his bedroom, in front of his wife and newborn child (kid was less than 2 years old). Now we should accept that as a fact of life? That criminals have the ability to gun us down in our homes, but we as a people cannot defend ourselves with those same tools? Thank you, but no, I'll retain my right to defend myself and my family from those that break the law.
  12. Registered User
    Australian made's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  213 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,160
    Answers
    0

    What the fck was the old man doing with a gun in a subway anyway? Its gotten to the point in the USA where you need to take a gun to your local takeaway store? your country has serious issues.

    As for Australia banning guns, do any of you actually no why the guns were banned in the first place. IT certainly has nothing to do with trying to reduce gun crime.
  13. Registered User
    ManBeast's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  XXX lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Age
    32
    Posts
    6,517
    Answers
    0

    If we didn't have the guns (anyone) there still would be crime and violence... it just would suck if only criminals could have guns...

    MB
    -Saving random peoples' nuts, one pair at at time... PCT info:
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/192992-pct-what-why.html
    -Are you really ready for a cycle? Read this link and be honest:
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/191120-checklist-before-thinking.html
    *I am not a medical expert, my opinions are not professional, and I strongly suggest doing research of your own.*
  14. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Australian made View Post
    What the fck was the old man doing with a gun in a subway anyway? Its gotten to the point in the USA where you need to take a gun to your local takeaway store? your country has serious issues.
    Millions of Americans have concealed carry permits and carry firearms out of choice.

    As for Australia banning guns, do any of you actually no why the guns were banned in the first place. IT certainly has nothing to do with trying to reduce gun crime.
    Yes. It was knee-jerk panicked reactions to a couple of homicidal shooting sprees.

    Incidentally, guns are NOT banned in Australia; they are very heavily regulated.

    Fortunately I live in a country where constitutional protections at both the state and federal level prevent the government from infringing upon my rights due to a public outcry.
  15. Registered User
    Australian made's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  213 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,160
    Answers
    0

    The old man did a dumb thing trying to be a hero. When you have a gun at your head and someone asks for your wallet you give it to him. He's a stupid but very lucky guy.

    If guns were made readily available in Australia tomorrow knowone would buy one except maybe a few farmers.
  16. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Australian made View Post
    The old man did a dumb thing trying to be a hero. When you have a gun at your head and someone asks for your wallet you give it to him. He's a stupid but very lucky guy.
    What guarantee did he have that the guy wasn't going to shoot him anyway?

    If you are willing to trust a criminal with your life, go right ahead. I am not.
  17. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    I suppose I should point out that Norway, Finland, and Switzerland have large amounts of weapons in civilian hands and yet nowhere near the problems that we have in the USA... so perhaps the guns aren't the problem.
  18. Registered User
    Australian made's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  213 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,160
    Answers
    0

    Did you see the link i put on the first page? Switzerland was 2nd behind USA in gun crime. Yeah no similarities.
  19. Registered User
    Nabisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,163
    Answers
    0

    He made a choice, not to let someone else take his life. That's not stupid. He didn't try to be a hero either, he just refused to bow to their demands. It wasn't until they threatened his life that he used deadly force. How is that stupid? He chose to protect his life, nothing stupid about it.

    I've lived in Australia hoss. Crimes still happen. Criminals still have guns. The Port Aurther Massacre was one of the reasons for the knee jerk gun control if I remember correctly.

    In response to him having a gun in a subway. Some states allow law-abiding citizens to apply for and receive permits to carry concealed firearms. He was legally able to carry protection with him, although it has to be concealed at all times. Some states in the US do not allow concealed carry permits. It's a matter of state regulation and the permits are heavily regulated.
  20. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Australian made View Post
    Did you see the link i put on the first page? Switzerland was 2nd behind USA in gun crime. Yeah no similarities.
    Actually, the chart is for gun deaths, not crime, and Switzerland is third, not second, which includes a high suicide rate. If a gun is unavailable for suicide, a determined person will find another means. Suicide statistics are a very weak argument for gun control.
  21. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Saurabh View Post
    That is nothing but fear-mongering without any sound reason at all.
    you can say so, but I notice the lack of "any sound reason" in your contrary assertion. I'm not even remotely convinced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saurabh View Post
    Let me ask you this - If you are so worried about tyrants overrunning USA can you please name me such tyrants in last 100 years of USA history?? Maybe a couple of Presidents that took away all the civil liberties of US citizens, to such an extent that every American was thankful for having the right to gun?
    Thanks for the lovely job of demonstrating my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saurabh View Post
    It is easy to make all these -tyrant-claims but lets hear out some concrete names/facts etc etc.
    Okay, but I doubt you'll like it:

    Adolf Hitler
    Jozef Stalin
    Mao Zedong
    ...and of course, the ever-popular King George III

    Quote Originally Posted by Saurabh View Post
    WOW! Those are some of the most violent cities in the world and it is only amusing that you compare a USA city to a Somalian city

    Reality check time:
    Right you are!

    I'm comparing the US (not any specific US city, thank you) to other countries that have similarly high per-capita firearm possession rates, compared to ALL of which, the US is by far the safest. You completely ignore the questions of culture and lifestyle and political structure, too.
  22. Registered User
    Australian made's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  213 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,160
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp View Post
    Actually, if you check the statistics, you will find that gun crime has been on the rise in England, despite its draconian gun control laws.
    Big gun problem in the Uk (been here nearly 3 years now)............this is going to sound racist, not that i care, but no doubt the massive influx of africans,caribeans, pakistanies and indians over the last few years is contributing to the ever increasing crime numbers.
  23. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Australian made View Post
    Big gun problem in the Uk (been here nearly 3 years now)............this is going to sound racist, not that i care, but no doubt the massive influx of africans,caribeans, pakistanies and indians over the last few years is contributing to the ever increasing crime numbers.
    ... which shows that perhaps there are factors at work besides guns in the US. The UK's gun control laws are far more strict than would ever be tolerated here, and yet they are not preventing gun crimes/violence.

    Remember that the US has 20 million or so illegal aliens inside its borders.
  24. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    all I am saying is read what I wrote in the first paragraph. I do not doubt how the modern world views it, however, in looking at it myself, the wording is a bit inconclusive
    I notice you haven't addressed my questions to you; if you really think the meaning of the amendment is "inconclusive", that'd be a good start on a closer investigation. check Xodus' exquisite post for some hints:

    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/polit...ml#post1322280
  25. Registered User
    Australian made's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  213 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    3,160
    Answers
    0

    The cops don't even carry guns here. Now that to me is incredibly stupid. They are no more use in a voilent situation then your average bystander. Well they have a batton and mace but yeah you get the picture.
  26. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    it truly is a battle of semantics IMO
    Multiple baseless and unsupported assertions in the face of the historical record and painstaking study thereof - that's hardly a battle (and that ain't just semantics).

    At least try to offer a supporting argument for your position: "here's my claim, prove me wrong" is NOT a compelling form of discourse.
  27. Registered User
    PappaD's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  250 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    122
    Answers
    0

    Carry my Glock 19!!! I have a nice collection of firearms!!!
  28. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,351
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    Multiple baseless and unsupported assertions in the face of the historical record and painstaking study thereof - that's hardly a battle (and that ain't just semantics).

    At least try to offer a supporting argument for your position: "here's my claim, prove me wrong" is NOT a compelling form of discourse.
    evidently you did not read the entire discourse that was taking place. When you do, I will be pleased to respond
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  29. NutraPlanet Fanatic
    Board Sponsor
    dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,303
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    with regard to your first statement I agree, it is semantics however for me if you read it literally then it seems fairly apparent, but we are at the point where there is a lot of give and take about language
    There was no organized militia when the constitution was written...weird how you think it applies only to them then.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  30. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,351
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    There was no organized militia when the constitution was written...weird how you think it applies only to them then.
    quite the contrary, when you look at the formation of the war for indy, there wasa fairly organized militia. In fact, for the most part, Washington credited the use of the militias (outside of Franch assistance) for really allowing the victory to happen
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  31. NutraPlanet Fanatic
    Board Sponsor
    dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,303
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    quite the contrary, when you look at the formation of the war for indy, there wasa fairly organized militia. In fact, for the most part, Washington credited the use of the militias (outside of Franch assistance) for really allowing the victory to happen
    Read your history books more...it was mostly able-bodied men grabbing their own PERSONAL weapons and standing up...which, again, leads back to the definition of militia:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

    "The whole body of physically fit CIVILIANS eligible for military service."

    You are simply...incorrect.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  32. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,351
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    Read your history books more...it was mostly able-bodied men grabbing their own PERSONAL weapons and standing up...which, again, leads back to the definition of militia:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia

    "The whole body of physically fit CIVILIANS eligible for military service."

    You are simply...incorrect.
    not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

    However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

    1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
    2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
    3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
    4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

    So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  33. NutraPlanet Fanatic
    Board Sponsor
    dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,303
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

    However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

    1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
    2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
    3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
    4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

    So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
    No, it is the issue of intent at the time the social contract called the constitution was written.

    The bill of rights only enumerates rights, it does not grant them. Rights are inherent - therefore, seeking to eliminate my rights invalidates my agreement to remain civil and sociable, and returns us to a natural state of "every man for himself."
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  34. Registered User
    Xodus's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,902
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

    However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

    1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
    2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
    3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
    4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

    So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
    What happens when its your own tyrannical government that you are called to fight against? It is NOT a matter of 'semantics' as that is expressly the reason why it was written into the constitution.
  35. Registered User
    Xodus's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,902
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    No, it is the issue of intent at the time the social contract called the constitution was written.

    The bill of rights only enumerates rights, it does not grant them. Rights are inherent - therefore, seeking to eliminate my rights invalidates my agreement to remain civil and sociable, and returns us to a natural state of "every man for himself."
    Eloquent.
  36. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    not going to get into my background in history, but I assure you I am in fact correct. I do not argue that civilians made up the militia, so your capped verbeage is unnecessary.

    However, lets apply that definition today, and look at dictionary.com for another view:

    1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
    2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
    3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    now with that said, it still is semantics. As which one do we choose to aply to modern standards? I do not know if you own guns, however lets assume for this argument that you do. Now the question is do you fit definiton #1, 2, 3, or 4? As #4 is an entriely different view.

    So as you see, it is an issue of semantics
    It is not an issue of semantics.

    The intent of the drafters of the constitution is clear. There is plenty of evidence showing this.

    Either provide contrary evidence or concede the argument.

    ETA: "Modern standards" do not matter. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing document" as liberals try to claim. What matters is the intent of the drafters of the document. Those intentions are clear.
    Last edited by jrkarp; 04-24-2008 at 11:48 AM.
  37. Registered User
    Nabisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,163
    Answers
    0

    Battle Royal!

    Erhem...carry on.
  38. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,351
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp View Post
    ETA: "Modern standards" do not matter. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing document" as liberals try to claim. What matters is the intent of the drafters of the document. Those intentions are clear.
    actually you couldnt be more wrong. Most historians believe, as a result of the ability to change the constitution that it is in fact a living, breathing document
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  39. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    actually you couldnt be more wrong. Most historians believe, as a result of the ability to change the constitution that it is in fact a living, breathing document
    The ability to amend it does not make it a living document. Amending the constitution does nothing to change the meaning of any part of the constitution - it either adds new material or replaces old provisions.
  40. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,351
    Answers
    0

    my final comment, I think many of you are missing my point, or are subjecting your own thoughts on what I am saying. All I am saying is that the second ammendment is not clear and concise. I have read what has been posted, and what courts have said, however, at the end of the day, as I have shown before the definition of militia encompasses quite a few ideas. Which in essence, makes it semantics.

    So for all you card carrying members of the NRA or those who just like to have a gun, you can all take a collective sigh of relief, as you and I both know the government will never take them away, regardless of many issues that have arisen as a result of it.

    Just out of curiosity, why do so many of you have them (directed of course at those who have said they do)? For protection? From what? How many break in or sitautions have you been involved in? Have you ever needed it? At the end of the day, I think it is foolish to assume you need one, specifically if it is a "just in case scenario" Just MHO
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Philadelphia Eagles Position by Position breakdown
    By R1balla in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-11-2011, 04:19 PM
  2. hand position on bench
    By Young Gotti in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 11:15 AM
  3. Resigning from my position at Molecular Nutrition
    By Aeternitatis in forum Molecular Nutrition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-05-2007, 09:44 AM
  4. BB rows....hand position
    By East1600Plus in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-06-2007, 08:41 PM
  5. Arm position ..... Not sure if I should post this here or not ..
    By Stinger124 in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-09-2006, 10:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in