# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Should we take shall not be infringed literally?

## NowWhat,Troll?

So I pose this question.  Should the second amendment be taken literally?  Does shall not be infringed mean that people should be able to have any arms anywhere anytime?

----------


## ArmySoldier

> So I pose this question.  Should the second amendment be taken literally?  Does shall not be infringed mean that people should be able to have any arms anywhere anytime?


It currently is taken literally. The public is a well regulated militia. There are background checks, age requirements...etc. None of our bill of rights will be infringed.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> It currently is taken literally. The public is a well regulated militia. There are background checks, age requirements...etc. None of our bill of rights will be infringed.


The question then was does not mean you should be able to own any arms anywhere at anytime.  Isn't that what the literal meaning of the word infringed means?

----------


## ArmySoldier

> The question then was does not mean you should be able to own any gun anywhere at anytime.  Isn't that what the literal meaning of the word infringed means?


Well then to answer that question. Yes. Anyone should be able to own a gun. I owned one when I was 6 years old. Went hunting with my dad.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Well then to answer that question. Yes. Anyone should be able to own a gun. I owned one when I was 6 years old. Went hunting with my dad.


To fully answer the question that would mean you would be able to own any type of arms and bring them on a plane, to the super bowl, to a courthouse where your son is on trial and felons would be able to own guns as well.  A private business can not discriminate in the public marketplace so they should not be able to deny you a gun on a plane.  Right?

----------


## Tennyson

Infringed is absolute in its meaning that guns are off limits and untouchable regarding the federal government. The word 'infringe" when the Bill of Rights was written was derived from the Latin word _infrango._ The meaning according to Websters dictionary of the era: was, meant to break, abolish, or cancel.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## ArmySoldier

> To fully answer the question that would mean you would be able to own any type of arms and bring them on a plane, to the super bowl, to a courthouse where your son is on trial and felons would be able to own guns as well.  A private business can not discriminate in the public marketplace so they should not be able to deny you a gun on a plane.  Right?


What? The constitution doesn't say that. Infringed is to   *own 

*the gun, not bringing it on an airplane.

Left wing: Send someone else

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Infringed is absolute in its meaning that guns are off limits and untouchable regarding the federal government. The word 'infringe" when the Bill of Rights was written was derived from the Latin word _infrango._ The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era: was, meant to break, abolish, or cancel.


Yep I got that and agree.  Should we stick to that in modern times is my question

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> What? The constitution doesn't say that. Infringed is to   *own 
> 
> *the gun, not bringing it on an airplane.
> 
> Left wing: Send someone else


Actually it says to keep and BEAR arms.  Bear as in carrying

----------


## ArmySoldier

In my opinion, we should be able to bear arms anywhere. I'd feel much safer having a gun than having to rely on some air marshall who probably only qualifies with a weapon once a month. However, that's not our current law of course.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> In my opinion, we should be able to bear arms anywhere. I'd feel much safer having a gun than having to rely on some air marshall who probably only qualifies with a weapon once a month. However, that's not our current law of course.


What do you think the super bowl (or any major event) would be like if everyone showed up armed?

----------

Robert Urbanek (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Yep I got that and agree.  Should we stick to that in modern times is my question


Absolutely. The states and towns regulated gun control as needed depending on the situation and environment, which the Supreme Court upheld throughout the nineteenth century as the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states: United States v. Cruikshank in 1876 and Presser v Illinois in 1886.

----------


## JMWinPR

> Well then to answer that question. Yes. Anyone should be able to own a gun. I owned one when I was 6 years old. Went hunting with my dad.


As well as any weapon that can be used against US citizens. The second amendment was/is not intended for putting food on the table or robbers. But from the rapscallions in government. We paid for the governments weapons.

----------



----------


## Tennyson

> What do you think the super bowl (or any major event) would be like if everyone showed up armed?


Those are private affairs. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017),Rickity Plumber (01-05-2017)

----------


## ArmySoldier

> What do you think the super bowl (or any major event) would be like if everyone showed up armed?


Why did you ask the question if you don't want to hear an answer? You basically created a thread just to only accept one answer...your own. 

Did you come over here from PF to troll us on anti-gun nonsense? lol

----------

Big Dummy (01-04-2017),MedicineBow (01-04-2017),Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017),Rickity Plumber (01-05-2017)

----------


## Archer

> So I pose this question.  Should the second amendment be taken literally?  Does shall not be infringed mean that people should be able to have any arms anywhere anytime?


Yes! Read the supporting writings of those that penned the constitution. The people should be armed and able to overthrow a corrupt government if necessary.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Those are private affairs. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government.


The government has every right currently to intervene in private business when they engage in the public marketplace.

----------


## Archer

> What do you think the super bowl (or any major event) would be like if everyone showed up armed?


Buy not infringing does not mean that the right to bear arms stands above any other right. I have a right to adk you not to carry a gun on my property. Your choice is to not carry or not come on my property.

The government is not to infringe but we are also not to infringe on the rights of others.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Why did you ask the question if you don't want to hear an answer? You basically created a thread just to only accept one answer...your own. 
> 
> Did you come over here from PF to troll us on anti-gun nonsense? lol


We can not engage in further debate?  Ok you can stop at any time.  I will no longer respond to your posts if such debate upsets you so much.

----------


## Archer

> The government has every right currently to intervene in private business when they engage in the public marketplace.


Not necessarily. The Heart of Atlanta case is abused as a precedent. Many times the government oversteps by using the commerce clause.

----------


## Tennyson

> The government has every right currently to intervene in private business when they engage in the public marketplace.


No. You are moving the goal posts. The argument is regarding the Second Amendment, not what the Supreme Court had done with the original meaning.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Buy not infringing does not mean that the right to bear arms stands above any other right. I have a right to adk you not to carry a gun on my property. Your choice is to not carry or not come on my property.
> 
> The government is not to infringe but we are also not to infringe on the rights of others.


But by that definition I could refuse to serve christians at my business because it is against my religion to do so.  This is currently illegal.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No. You are moving the goal posts. The argument is regarding the Second Amendment, not what the Supreme Court had done with the original meaning.


Ok so to be clear you are against any federal regulations of any arms at any time.

----------


## Tennyson

> Ok so to be clear you are against any federal regulations of any arms at any time.


Yes.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## Archer

> But by that definition I could refuse to serve christians at my business because it is against my religion to do so.  This is currently illegal.


It should not be.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Yes.


But states may make their own regulations outside of the limitations of the bill of rights?  So a state could ban all weapons of any type for anyone if it wishes?

----------


## ArmySoldier

> We can not engage in further debate?  Ok you can stop at any time.  I will no longer respond to your posts if such debate upsets you so much.


You haven't accepted one piece from any opposition. It's called trolling

----------

Big Dummy (01-04-2017),MedicineBow (01-04-2017),MrogersNhood (01-04-2017),Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You haven't accepted one piece from any opposition. It's called trolling


All I have done is ask for further clarification.  Look if this is upsetting for you then leave.

----------


## Archer

> All I have done is ask for further clarification.  Look if this is upsetting for you then leave.


It is what it is! America! Love it or leave it!

----------

Big Dummy (01-04-2017),Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> It is what it is! America! Love it or leave it!


I couldn't agree more.

----------


## Tennyson

> But states may make their own regulations outside of the limitations of the bill of rights?  So a state could ban all weapons of any type for anyone if it wishes?


The state governments are closest to the people and operate at the will and pleasure of the people. In over 200+ years, your hypothetical has never materialized. That is the dual federalism structure of our government.

----------

ArmySoldier (01-04-2017),Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## ArmySoldier

> All I have done is ask for further clarification.  Look if this is upsetting for you then leave.


Lol you got it dude

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The state governments are closest to the people and operate at the will and pleasure of the people. In over 200+ years, your hypothetical has never materialized. That is the dual federalism structure of our government.


Yes that has never happened because currently the Bill of Rights does apply to the states.  A state could not outlaw all guns if it wanted to.  But if you are saying the bill of rights does not apply to the states then it could.  California could ban most guns in the way say...the UK has done.  Correct?

----------


## Tennyson

> Yes that has never happened because currently the Bill of Rights does apply to the states.  A state could not outlaw all guns if it wanted to.  But if you are saying the bill of rights does not apply to the states then it could.  California could ban most guns in the way say...the UK has done.  Correct?


You are moving into the incorporation doctrine, which is a different argument. 

There are only two arguments regarding the Bill of Rights and they cannot be intertwined: original intent and Supreme Court rulings (incorporated doctrine). If you want to use the Supreme Court, then it would be incumbent on you to defend the rulings on their constitutional bases.

----------

Big Dummy (01-04-2017),Old Ridge Runner (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You are moving into the incorporation doctrine, which is a different argument. 
> 
> There are only two arguments regarding the Bill of Rights and they cannot be intertwined: original intent and Supreme Court rulings (incorporated doctrine). If you want to use the Supreme Court, then it would be incumbent on you to defend the rulings on their constitutional bases.


Perhaps I was not clear.  I am asking you which argument you uphold.  If you believe the bill of rights does not apply to the states then there can be no federal gun laws but states are free to do as they wish.  If you believe that supreme court rulings apply then the federal government can make gun laws and the supreme court can at any time rule on restrictions and grant them.  You may disagree with those rulings but you can not disagree with their power to make them

----------


## Big Dummy

> The state governments are closest to the people and operate at the will and pleasure of the people. In over 200+ years, your hypothetical has never materialized. That is the dual federalism structure of our government.


California has a ban on handguns. No one is doing shit about it.

----------


## MedicineBow

What does infringement mean concerning *bearing* arms?




> What? The constitution doesn't say that. Infringed is to   *own 
> 
> *the gun, not bringing it on an airplane.
> 
> Left wing: Send someone else

----------


## Robert Urbanek

> California has a ban on handguns. No one is doing shit about it.


Really? Source?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> What does infringement mean concerning *bearing* arms?


Literally it would mean you would be able to carry any arms anywhere at anytime.

----------


## MedicineBow

That is why I find most laws prohibiting carry to be an infringement.




> Literally it would mean you would be able to carry any arms anywhere at anytime.

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That is why I find most laws prohibiting carry to be an infringement.


Most?  Do you agree there should be some infringements or should infringe be taken literally?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So I pose this question.  Should the second amendment be taken literally?  Does shall not be infringed mean that people should be able to have any arms anywhere anytime?



No no, it should not, as Alice was told. "When I use a *word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”*

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Perhaps I was not clear.  I am asking you which argument you uphold.  If you believe the bill of rights does not apply to the states then there can be no federal gun laws but states are free to do as they wish.  If you believe that supreme court rulings apply then the federal government can make gun laws and the supreme court can at any time rule on restrictions and grant them.  You may disagree with those rulings but you can not disagree with their power to make them


I disagree with the Supreme Court rulings regarding the Bill of Rights and with their power to do so. 

There is no constitutional federal government power regarding the Bill of Rights.  

If you choose to use a Supreme Court ruling, then is is incumbent on you to defend the ruling.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I disagree with the Supreme Court rulings regarding the Bill of Rights and with their power to do so. 
> 
> There is no constitutional federal government power regarding the Bill of Rights.  
> 
> If you choose to use a Supreme Court ruling, then is is incumbent on you to defend the ruling.


So thus any state could ban all guns....and outlaw christanity for that matter.  Ok thanks for being clear.

----------


## Tennyson

> So thus any state could ban all guns....and outlaw christanity for that matter.  Ok thanks for being clear.


Do you have any historical evidence to support your views?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Do you have any historical evidence to support your views?


I am simply going by what you said.  If the bill of rights can not be applied to the states why could they not do those things.  I think the second is highly unlikely but I think some states might go for a gun ban similiar to what is done in europe but I am just guessing.  The point is they COULD do it if the bill of rights does not apply to them.

----------


## Tennyson

> I am simply going by what you said.  If the bill of rights can not be applied to the states why could they not do those things.  I think the second is highly unlikely but I think some states might go for a gun ban similiar to what is done in europe but I am just guessing.  The point is they COULD do it if the bill of rights does not apply to them.


I do not understand what point you are attempting to make. You seem to be broadcasting platitudes sans purpose. That is trollish.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I do not understand what point you are attempting to make. You seem to be broadcasting platitudes sans purpose.


I really can't make it clearer for you.  If the bill of rights applies to the states and the the second amendment is to be taken literally then there can be no restrictions on arms in the US.  If the bill of rights does not apply to the states then each state may decide what rights its citizens have and could ban all guns for instance.

----------


## Tennyson

> I really can't make it clearer for you.  If the bill of rights applies to the states and the the second amendment is to be taken literally then there can be no restrictions on arms in the US.  If the bill of rights does not apply to the states then each state may decide what rights its citizens have and could ban all guns for instance.



I have no idea what you just said or your point. Good luck anyway.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I have no idea what you just said or your point. Good luck anyway.


Ok have a great day.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So thus any state could ban all guns....and outlaw christanity for that matter.  Ok thanks for being clear.



Except that most states have a Constitution that mirrors the US Constitution

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Except that most states have a Constitution that mirrors the US Constitution


And state constitutions can be changed.  Lots of states don't have the equivalent of a second amendment in their constitutions.

----------


## Tennyson

State constitutions can be changed by a state-wide referendum. The US Constitution had been changed by the Supreme Court. One of these is wrong.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (01-04-2017),Rickity Plumber (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Most?  Do you agree there should be some infringements or should infringe be taken literally?


FACT:  The USA, federal and state has more than 10,000 gun laws.  All "infringe" in some way with the 2nd Amendment.

But nowhere in the USA has tougher gun laws than Chicago. [Over 3500 shootings]  Other Democrat ruled cities have gun control laws as stringent as Chicago, or nearly so.

ALL OF THOSE CITIES HAVE OUTRAGEOUS MURDER AND CRIME RATES.

Is there a connection?

Between tough gun laws and high crime rates?

Between tough gun laws and high murder rates?

Between tough gun laws and Democrat rule?

Between Democrat rule and high crime and murder rates?

Obama the Idiot made the liberal position clear with just a few statements:

"WE must pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS."

He actually uttered that stupidity.

And he said:

"We must pass better gun laws because background checks don't work."

But he also said:

"We are doing background checks on all the Middle East refugees."


One must be a liberal, immeasurably gullible, completely stupid, and fail the easiest intelligence test to believe ANYTHING ever said by obama.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

Chicago is ranked 18th in per capita gun homicides.  I think that is pretty good.  Also states with the highest gun ownership and most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.  Oh and they are all run by the GOP.  But I suppose we are derailing.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> State constitutions can be changed by a state-wide referendum. The US Constitution had been changed by the Supreme Court. One of these is wrong.


The vast majority of legal experts would disagree with you.  Certainly most supreme court justices would....even Scalia.

----------


## Dan40

> Chicago is ranked 18th in per capita gun homicides.  I think that is pretty good.  Also states with the highest gun ownership and most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.  Oh and they are all run by the GOP.  But I suppose we are derailing.


Liberal lies.

CITY-------------------MURDER RATE.

Atlanta                 20.5

Baltimore               33.8

Buffalo                  23.2

Cincinnati              20.2

Cleveland               16.2

Detroit                 43.5

Kansas City             16.7

Miami                   19.2

New Orleans             38.7

Newark                   33.3

Oakland                 19.5

St Louis                49.9

Chicago                 15.1

All long time Democrat ruled cities.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Liberal lies.


Simple facts.

----------


## Tennyson

> The vast majority of legal experts would disagree with you.  Certainly most supreme court justices would....even Scalia.


That is factually untrue.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That is factually untrue.


You believe that the vast majority of legal experts agree that the supreme court shopuld NOT have the ability to interpret the constitution and that the bill of rights has no sway over the states?

----------


## Tennyson

> Chicago is ranked 18th in per capita gun homicides.  I think that is pretty good.  Also states with the highest gun ownership and most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.  Oh and they are all run by the GOP.  But I suppose we are derailing.


That is not accurate nor is it how the impact of the per capita murder rate is calculated by the FBI.

----------


## Midgardian

> The vast majority of legal experts would disagree with you.  Certainly most supreme court justices would....even Scalia.


Scalia is not around to agree or disagree with anything.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That is not accurate nor is it how the impact of the per capita murder rate is calculated by the FBI.


As for Chicago, the Pew Research Center published a report in 2014 that found that while Chicago had seen a lot of murders in raw numbers, smaller cities had a higher rate, adjusted for population. Using FBI data — with the caveat that it is reported by local police agencies and not always consistently — the Pew Research Center determined that the top cities in 2012 for the murder rate were Flint, Michigan; Detroit; New Orleans; and Jackson, Mississippi. Chicago came in 21st

Here is one that uses FBI data

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chi...r-capita-rate/

----------


## Tennyson

> You believe that the vast majority of legal experts agree that the supreme court shopuld NOT have the ability to interpret the constitution and that the bill of rights has no sway over the states?


That depends on who you consider are the vast majority of legal experts. Now we are back to it is incumbent on you to defend any of these so-called experts opinions regarding this subject on the constitutional basis. Proxy arguments are dangerous.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That depends on who you consider are the vast majority of legal experts. Now we are back to it is incumbent on you to defend any of these so-called experts opinions regarding this subject on the constitutional basis. Proxy arguments are dangerous.


I see you are wise to back down from that.  I doubt you could name five that agree with you.  But please....prove me wrong.

----------


## Tennyson

> As for Chicago, the Pew Research Center published a report in 2014 that found that while Chicago had seen a lot of murders in raw numbers, smaller cities had a higher rate, adjusted for population. Using FBI data — with the caveat that it is reported by local police agencies and not always consistently — the Pew Research Center determined that the top cities in 2012 for the murder rate were Flint, Michigan; Detroit; New Orleans; and Jackson, Mississippi. Chicago came in 21st
> 
> Here is one that uses FBI data
> 
> https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chi...r-capita-rate/


If you want to use FBI data, go to the FBI website and create a spreadsheet. Using someone's opinion regarding FBI data is not going to cut it. Murder rates are classified by population with 250,000 being the key number in the US and world-wide.

----------


## Tennyson

> I see you are wise to back down from that.  I doubt you could name five that agree with you.  But please....prove me wrong.


You can view my response how ever you want. I stand by my post.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> If you want to use FBI data, go to the FBI website and create a spreadsheet. Using someone's opinion regarding FBI data is not going to cut it. Murder rates are classified by population with 250,000 being the key number in the US and world-wide.


I also stand by my post.  But feel free to make any spreadsheets you like.

----------


## Dan40

> As for Chicago, the Pew Research Center published a report in 2014 that found that while Chicago had seen a lot of murders in raw numbers, smaller cities had a higher rate, adjusted for population. Using FBI data — with the caveat that it is reported by local police agencies and not always consistently — the Pew Research Center determined that the top cities in 2012 for the murder rate were Flint, Michigan; Detroit; New Orleans; and Jackson, Mississippi. Chicago came in 21st
> 
> Here is one that uses FBI data
> 
> https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chi...r-capita-rate/


PeeYuu said hillary was a lock to be president.

Do your own research

FBI â Crime in the U.S.

----------


## Tennyson

> I also stand by my post.  But feel free to make any spreadsheets you like.


Not to be snarky, but you have provided nothing but left-wing talking points, platitudes, and proxy arguments. You have provided no orginal thoughts or a reason for any of your posts. You seem to just be interested in spreading propaganda. Your posts seem to have only the purpose of being provocative and sucking people into your game. In my book that is the defintion of a troll.

----------


## Dan40

> Not to be snarky, but you have provided nothing but left-wing talking points, platitudes, and proxy arguments. You have provided no orginal thoughts or a reason for any of your posts. You seem to just be interested in spreading propaganda. Your posts seem to have only the purpose of being provocative and sucking people into your game. In my book that is the defintion of a troll.


Yep, liberal troll, most likely a sock too.

IGNORE.

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

This is very simple.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for the security of a free state.

Thus, there must be a well regulated militia.

Well regulated means to be "equipped, maintained, and capable."

To effect this, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The question arises - security from whom?

A state is part of two entities - the federal union and its own sovereign state.

"Sovereign" and "free" go together.

Our federal system delegates some powers to the federal government with all others being left to the states, or the people. 

See the Tenth Amendment.

One of those federal powers is to defend the Union from invasion.

So, that takes care of external threats to the security of a state.

How about internal threats?

This is why we have the Second Amendment - to protect a state from encroachments on its liberty by the federal government.

It stands to reason that a state that cannot match the federal government in fire power cannot maintain its security as a free state.

Thus, "the right to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed.

Anti-constitution liberals love to muddy the water by bringing up impractical and ridiculous allusions to nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers - and do this only so they can get a foothold on to banning actual "arms" - those that can be held or carried - such as pistols and rifles.

A weapon is a tool and must be used appropriately.

If the need for nukes or AC operations by state militias becomes necessary, then the federal government has entirely overstepped its bounds, and the entire question is academic.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is so that never even becomes a question that is on the table.

"When the government fears the people - there is liberty.  When the people fear the government - there is tyranny."

----------

Rickity Plumber (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Not to be snarky, but you have provided nothing but left-wing talking points, platitudes, and proxy arguments. You have provided no orginal thoughts or a reason for any of your posts. You seem to just be interested in spreading propaganda. Your posts seem to have only the purpose of being provocative and sucking people into your game. In my book that is the defintion of a troll.


I would suggest you no longer debate me.  

I have presented clear and logical debate and even backed it up with verifiable evidence.  I have done it politely and respectfully.  If you are threatened by that then you should leave this thread.  But leave knowing you lost ....because you did.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Yep, liberal troll, most likely a sock too.
> 
> IGNORE.


Thank god.  LOL

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Oh shit, another lefty know it fucking all.

----------

MedicineBow (01-04-2017),Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> This is very simple.
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for the security of a free state.
> 
> Thus, there must be a well regulated militia.
> 
> Well regulated means to be "equipped, maintained, and capable."
> 
> To effect this, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ...


What a lot of people do not understand is that the Tenth Amendment is Article II of the Articles of Confederation that was carried over:

 Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

----------


## Big Dummy

> I also stand by my post.  But feel free to make any spreadsheets you like.


The genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back now.




Let's get real. You have no plan for rounding up guns, only in making their owners criminals. There is no point in defying all that is holy to America, The Constitution, or is there a point? Is that your ultimate goal, to destroy the Constitution in its entirety? 

Let's try another question, what do you consider freedom? You pay your taxes, you don't hurt or rob or deceive for income. you deserve a right to be free. Does that give you a right to take others definition of freedom away?

----------


## Midgardian

> Yep I got that and agree.  Should we stick to that in modern times is my question


If you don't like the Second Amendment then get busy amending the Constitution. 

Until then, it is the law of the land.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get real. You have no plan for rounding up guns, only in making their owners criminals. There is no point in defying all that is holy to America, The Constitution, or is there a point? Is that your ultimate goal, to destroy the Constitution in its entirety? 
> 
> Let's try another question, what do you consider freedom? You pay your taxes, you don't hurt or rob or deceive for income. you deserve a right to be free. Does that give you a right to take others definition of freedom away?


A lot of questions.  Let me answer them all in order 

Yes there is a point
Nope that is not my goal
That would take hours to explain
Freedom does not mean you can make my community a dangerous place without my consent

----------


## Midgardian

> What do you think the super bowl (or any major event) would be like if everyone showed up armed?


Safer.

----------


## Dan40

> Oh shit, another lefty know it fucking all.


I wonder if the troll knows which criminally insane bitch is NOT ever going to be president?

----------


## Midgardian

Are the Giants moving to Las Vegas, perhaps in a joint stadium with the Raiders?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> If you don't like the Second Amendment then get busy amending the Constitution. 
> 
> Until then, it is the law of the land.


So is restricting it.  Completely constitutional.

----------


## Midgardian

> So is restricting it.  Completely constitutional.


How so?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> How so?


SCOTUS has upheld restrictions on firearms.  It is constitutional if they say it is constitutional.  That's how it works

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I wonder if the troll knows which criminally insane bitch is NOT ever going to be president?


Hope springs eternal with this group.

To me he/she is another of those "living, breathing constitution" types.  A constitution that can be interpreted on a whim which renders it totally useless.  I do not believe that man fundamentally changes his core values and what was right in 1776 is right today.  

If the Constitution can be interpreted at will just what purpose does it serve?

----------


## Midgardian

> SCOTUS has upheld restrictions on firearms.  It is constitutional if they say it is constitutional.  That's how it works


Ah, so you support Pl_essy v Ferguson_ and Dr_ed Scott v S_andford, do you?  

SCOTUS can never be wrong?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Hope springs eternal with this group.
> 
> To me he/she is another of those "living, breathing constitution" types.  A constitution that can be interpreted on a whim which renders it totally useless.  I do not believe that man fundamentally changes his core values and what was right in 1776 is right today.  
> 
> If the Constitution can be interpreted at will just what purpose does it serve?


Well almost all legal scholars disagree with you....but we do have your opinion.

----------


## Knightkore

> So is restricting it.  Completely constitutional.


There are two intriguing amendments that use the terms shall not infringe/abridge.....the First and the Second.....the First Amendment leftists and others tend to forget about NOT abridging freedom of religion.  On the second you do indeed have shall not infringe.....on ownership.....self defense and defense of country.....and against tyrannical governments.....

The two Amendments go hand in hand.....and when a government starts illegal restricted both.....we have a duty to fight that government by all means necessary.....first through peaceful laws and courts.....but if that doesn't work.....a new rebellion may be necessary.....

Regressive liberals have problems with language.....and what is actually written.....we understand.....

{An addendum to this.....regressive liberals have an aversion of rules at all.....they violate even nature's/creation's rules and have come up with made up genders.....all thinking that just as long as they ignore the "do nots" and redefine things with different language and meanings.....that will change reality.....it doesn't.....}

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (01-04-2017),MrogersNhood (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Ah, so you support Pl_essy v Ferguson_ and Dr_ed Scott v S_andford, do you?  
> 
> SCOTUS can never be wrong?


Of course SCOTUS can be wrong.  Maybe they are wrong.  But it is the law of the land.  That is how it works.

----------


## Knightkore

> Well almost all legal scholars disagree with you....but we do have your opinion.


You mean like The Hussein?  Or other regressive liberal revisionists?  Those "scholars"?   :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Midgardian

I wonder what the OP's opinion is on_ Citizens United_.

"If SCOTUS says it is constitutional then it is constitutional."

- vegas giants

----------


## Knightkore

> Of course SCOTUS can be wrong.  Maybe they are wrong.  But it is the law of the land.  That is how it works.


SCOTUS RULES on laws.  They don't make laws.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You mean like The Hussein?  Or other regressive liberal revisionists?  Those "scholars"?


No I mean like Scalia who one said (I am paraphrasing) The second amendment does not mean you can have any gun anywhere anytime.

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> SCOTUS RULES on laws.  They don't make laws.


Yep.  And they have ruled that some restrictions on guns are constitutional.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I wonder what the OP's opinion is on_ Citizens United_.
> 
> "If SCOTUS says it is constitutional then it is constitutional."
> 
> - vegas giants


It is.  Is that clear enough?

----------


## Dan40

> SCOTUS has upheld restrictions on firearms.  It is constitutional if they say it is constitutional.  That's how it works


So then none of these cities and many more Democrat cities has a problem.  Got it, liberal logic, such as it is.

CITY-------------------MURDER RATE.

Atlanta                 20.5

Baltimore               33.8

Buffalo                  23.2

Cincinnati              20.2

Cleveland               16.2

Detroit                 43.5

Kansas City             16.7

Miami                   19.2

New Orleans             38.7

Newark                   33.3

Oakland                 19.5

St Louis                49.9

Chicago                 15.1

All long time Democrat ruled cities.

----------


## MrogersNhood

Gee, I wish the guy that always owns Vegas Giants in his gun ban threads was here.

You guys are doing a decent job, though.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Yep.  And they have ruled that some restrictions on guns are constitutional.


And that is unconstitutional.

People should be allowed to have whatever armaments they want.

----------


## Midgardian

> Of course SCOTUS can be wrong.  Maybe they are wrong.  But it is the law of the land.  That is how it works.


No. 

SCOTUS may not violate the constitution.

The justices serve on terms of "good behavior".

When they act wrongly they can and should be impeached and removed from the bench.

The judiciary was never meant to be a super branch that has the final say.

Alexander Hamilton thought that the judiciary would be "the least dangerous branch."

It should be, but isn't - thanks to "living document" persons like yourself and not enough patriots upholding the constitution - something that I took an oath to do when I worked for the state of California.

I also had to say that I was not a member of the Communist party.

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## Knightkore

> No I mean like Scalia who one said (I am paraphrasing) The second amendment does not mean you can have any gun anywhere anytime.


Well, why not?  Heck I would go so far as to allow someone to have tanks.  Oh yeah.....there are some rich people that DO indeed have tanks.  They don't use them.....but they are in working order.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Littlefield

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...es-3176289.php



{Talk about owning guns.  These are some big guns this guy owned.}

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Of the 50 states only 7 do not have provisions guaranteeing the right to bear arms.  

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

As for the claim that "most legal scholars disagree" I think you would find that a hard claim to prove.  And I suppose that means we have your opinion as well doesn't it.

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Well, why not?  Heck I would go so far as to allow someone to have tanks.  Oh yeah.....there are some rich people that DO indeed have tanks.  They don't use them.....but they are in working order.....
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Littlefield
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...es-3176289.php
> 
> 
> 
> {Talk about owning guns.  These are some big guns this guy owned.}


As I said most legal scholars would disagree with you

----------


## Midgardian

I want my own decommissioned aircraft carrier.

Along with a fighter jet or aircraft modified to be a bomber, I can project air superiority.

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Of the 50 states only 7 do not have provisions guaranteeing the right to bear arms.  
> 
> State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
> 
> As for the claim that "most legal scholars disagree" I think you would find that a hard claim to prove.  And I suppose that means we have your opinion as well doesn't it.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  But can you name a supreme court justice that believes the second amendment should be taken literally?  In fact can you name anyone.  I can name many that do not believe that.

----------


## Midgardian

> As I said most legal scholars would disagree with you


Who are these "most legal scholars." 

Instead of playing appeal to authority fallacy games, why don't you cite some legal opinions that you have read.

Have you read any legal opinions?

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## Knightkore

> I want my own decommissioned aircraft carrier.
> 
> Along with a fighter jet or aircraft modified to be a bomber, I can project air superiority.


That would be sweet.....let the EPA come after you then right?

----------

Midgardian (01-04-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> I can name many that do not believe that.


Then do so and cite their opinions, Mr. legal scholar.

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Knightkore

> As I said most legal scholars would disagree with you


So why then did this guy.....in California own all those wonderful tank weapons.....?

I'm sure those "legal scholars" would be fine arguing with a few of those tanks.....

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Then do so and cite their opinions, Mr. legal scholar.


On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:
The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  But can you name a supreme court justice that believes the second amendment should be taken literally?  In fact can you name anyone.  I can name many that do not believe that.



If you make the claim that "many" believe that is something I would accept  the claim of  "most" is not.


And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what "most" or many or a few think it means.  I believe it means exactly what it says.

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:


1939, huh?

And you cited one judge, as if he represents "most".

LOL!

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> If you make the claim that "many" believe that is something I would accept  the claim of  "most" is not.
> 
> 
> And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what "most" or many or a few think it means.  I believe it means exactly what it says.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion

----------


## Knightkore

> You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  But can you name a supreme court justice that believes the second amendment should be taken literally?  In fact can you name anyone.  I can name many that do not believe that.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html

http://www.goal.org/newspages/scotusdropshammer.html

The _Heller_ decision, reaffirmed by _McDonald_, also stated that the Second  Amendment _“protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes,  most notably for self-defense within the home.”_
More of the  ruling that the opposition does not want to bring to light is that _McDonald_ clearly  and soundly dropped the hammer on all of the old tired arguments against the  Second Amendment. In the written opinion the Court strongly rejected arguments  such as the international recognition, the interest balance argument, the local  rule argument and more.

----------


## Knightkore

http://www.goal.org/newspages/scotusdropshammer.html

*The  Second Amendment is Different* (Page 40, Alito) - _Municipal  respondents argue, finally, that the right to keep and bear arms is unique  among the rights set out in the first eight Amendments “because the reason for  codifying the Second Amendment (to protect the militia) differs from the  purpose (primarily, to use firearms to engage in self-defense) that is claimed  to make the right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Brief for  Municipal Respondents 36–37. Municipal respondents suggest that the Second  Amendment right differs from the rights heretofore incorporated because the  latter were “valued for[their] own sake.” Id., at 33. But we have never  previously suggested that incorporation of a right turns on whether it has  intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value, and quite a few of the rights  previously held to be incorporated—for example the right to counsel and the  right to confront and subpoena witnesses—are clearly instrumental by any  measure. Moreover, this contention repackages one of the chief arguments that  we rejected in Heller, i.e., that the scope of the Second Amendment right is  defined by the immediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the  Bill of Rights. In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this  right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus  disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued  only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at  26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the  possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put  it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid._

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Just for grins just what do you think was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Originally Posted by *Dr. Felix Birdbiter* 
_If you make the claim that "many" believe that is something I would accept the claim of "most" is not.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion

And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what "most" or many or a few think it means. I believe it means exactly what it says.



May I suggest in the future you post outside of the quotes.  It makes your drivel much easier to read._

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html
> 
> http://www.goal.org/newspages/scotusdropshammer.html
> 
> The _Heller_ decision, reaffirmed by _McDonald_, also stated that the Second  Amendment _“protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes,  most notably for self-defense within the home.”_
> More of the  ruling that the opposition does not want to bring to light is that _McDonald_ clearly  and soundly dropped the hammer on all of the old tired arguments against the  Second Amendment. In the written opinion the Court strongly rejected arguments  such as the international recognition, the interest balance argument, the local  rule argument and more.


The Heller opinion DOES recognize that there are some constitutional limits to the second amendment as well.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Originally Posted by *Dr. Felix Birdbiter* 
> _If you make the claim that "many" believe that is something I would accept the claim of "most" is not.
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion
> 
> And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what "most" or many or a few think it means. I believe it means exactly what it says.
> 
> 
> May I suggest in the future you post outside of the quotes.  It makes your drivel much easier to read._


_I fixed it.  Sloppy typing.  My apologies_

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Just for grins just what do you think was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?


To establish a militia and also to overthrow a tyrannical government if needed.

----------


## Knightkore

> The Heller opinion DOES recognize that there are some constitutional limits to the second amendment as well.


Post #115.

Bold letters.

----------


## Tennyson

The quickest way to manifest one's lack of credibility is to invoke the National Firearms Act, which was upheld by FDR's hand-picked corrupt Supreme Court. The second is to not be able to produce the Article III power to make a ruling regarding a state's laws. This does not include of course that incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Constitution was rejected by the First Congress.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Post #115.
> 
> Bold letters.


Do you deny that the Heller opinion upheld certain restrictions as well?  Do I need to post the opinion?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

From the Heller opinion.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> To establish a militia and also to overthrow a tyrannical government if needed.


Why would you then expect there be restrictions to ownership?

----------

Knightkore (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Why would you then expect there be restrictions to ownership?


Because in modern times we need restrictions to maintain a safe community

----------


## Tennyson

The rulings of McDonald and Heller are abortions. The court had the chance to undo fifty years constitutional raping with McDonald, but was shackled by the unconstitutional doctrine of stare decisis.

----------


## Knightkore

> Because in modern times we need restrictions to maintain a safe community


Chicago is the best and most exemplary example of this correct?

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Chicago is the best and most exemplary example of this correct?


Chicago is ranked 18th in per capita gun murders

----------


## MrogersNhood

Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?  :Blahblah: 

Deja Vu, anyone?

----------


## Knightkore

> Do you deny that the Heller opinion upheld certain restrictions as well?  Do I need to post the opinion?


{This answers your question.....LAWFUL purposes.  It is how that Jacques was able to own hundreds of working tanks in a liberal state.  Lawful purpose would be collection.  And if necessary.....full implementation of the Second Amendment.  If your concept would be put forth.....we'd all be limited to tiny fish tank stones as weapons.....but the criminals.....as in Chicago would have free reign.....}

The _Heller_ decision, reaffirmed by _McDonald_, also stated that the Second  Amendment _“protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes

http://www.goal.org/newspages/scotusdropshammer.html
_

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> {This answers your question.....LAWFUL purposes.  It is how that Jacques was able to own hundreds of working tanks in a liberal state.  Lawful purpose would be collection.  And if necessary.....full implementation of the Second Amendment.  If your concept would be put forth.....we'd all be limited to tiny fish tank stones as weapons.....but the criminals.....as in Chicago would have free reign.....}
> 
> The _Heller_ decision, reaffirmed by _McDonald_, also stated that the Second  Amendment _“protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes
> 
> http://www.goal.org/newspages/scotusdropshammer.html
> _


And supports some restrictions or infringements.

----------


## Knightkore

> Chicago is ranked 18th in per capita gun murders


And?  They have some of the strongest anti-gun measures.  Please cite your source for this though.....

----------


## Knightkore

> And supports some restrictions or infringements.


By federal or state?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> And?  They have some of the strongest anti-gun measures.  Please cite your source for this though.....


I have already in this thread.  FBI data

----------


## Big Dummy

> A lot of questions.  Let me answer them all in order 
> 
> Yes there is a point
> Nope that is not my goal
> That would take hours to explain
> Freedom does not mean you can make my community a dangerous place without my consent


I bet you have car keys or a bicycle./ Both make my world an unsafe place. Hand over you hair spray and insecticide while you are at it. Your litter that is going to cost you. I don't care what the wind blew in. Heck your human waste has potential to make me sick and die. Plug your ass into the government shit collection 3 times a day. Your freaking ideas are a threat to me which makes my life a dangerous place.  Would love to see your opus of an answer to why as you attack freedom and wish harm to come upon the weak and preyed upon. It is an import right you wish to destroy  , you better make a great case. You may want to take your time and be through.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> By federal or state?


Does it matter?  Are infringements allowed at the state level?  Can a state ban all guns then?

----------


## Big Dummy

> Does it matter?  Are infringements allowed at the state level?  Can a state ban all guns then?


Yes
They should not be
No they cannot anymore than they can prevent you and your mate from doing some drunken cornholeing.


They big question is why do you want to go after law abiding tool owners. Are you going to go after hammers , wrenches and screw drivers, Box cutters, where does it end?

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Who are these "most legal scholars." 
> 
> Instead of playing appeal to authority fallacy games, why don't you cite some legal opinions that you have read.
> 
> Have you read any legal opinions?


I'll give you a heads up. This guy uses Alinsky tactics.

----------

Big Dummy (01-04-2017),Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

The meanings of the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not change. The word "infringed" in the Second Amendment means the same thing today that it did in 1791. The concept of "some restrictions and infringements" is not in the Constitution.

----------


## Tennyson

> I'll give you a heads up. This guy uses Alinsky tactics.


Throw in a little commie Zinn.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Throw in a little commie Zinn.


He always posted in the "Gun control" section of PF. Sometimes a thread every other other day, other times 2 a day.


Yes, they have a section for that.   :Thinking:

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

This one's for Vegas Giants: The Obama Civilian Military  | The Last Refuge

"to me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.
 Now suppose, the 20 milllion Beijing citizens had a couple million  rifles on hand in 1989? How many rounds should they have been allowed to  load into their magazines? Ten rounds? Seven rounds? How about three  rounds?
 Do not give up the fight, my friends. It may be a small step that you give up your rifle, or a 30 round magazine."

Said a guy that was at Tienanmen square.

----------


## MedicineBow

A foolish argument. Restrictions won't make you safer, but they could make you an easier target. 

Define what justifies a safe community. 



> Because in modern times we need restrictions to maintain a safe community

----------

MrogersNhood (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The meanings of the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not change. The word "infringed" in the Second Amendment means the same thing today that it did in 1791. The concept of "some restrictions and infringements" is not in the Constitution.


Almost everyone believes in some restrictions or infringements

----------


## Big Dummy

> Almost everyone believes in some restrictions or infringements


Yeah, I believe liberals like you should be restricted from voting and infringed from saying you want to remove rights.

----------

Midgardian (01-04-2017),MrogersNhood (01-04-2017),Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> You are certainly entitled to your opinion


As are you, and your opinions on this subject, while wrong, are noted.

----------


## Midgardian

> Almost everyone believes in some restrictions or infringements


You sure like to use vague terms.

Please, identify this mysterious "almost everyone".

----------


## MedicineBow

It should be taken literally.  Although I don't have an issue with the incarcerated being infringed upon.




> Most?  Do you agree there should be some infringements or should infringe be taken literally?

----------


## Midgardian

> I have already in this thread.  FBI data


Chicago doesn't report all of their statistics to the FBI.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> It should be taken literally.  Although I don't have an issue with the incarcerated being infringed upon.


I have to agree that if you were convicted of a violent felony with a gun you should be stripped of the right to own.

----------


## Tennyson

> Almost everyone believes in some restrictions or infringements


Your statement has no connection to my post.

----------


## Midgardian

> Because in modern times we need restrictions to maintain a safe community


You have made a normative argument. 

Defend it, please.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Chicago doesn't report all of their statistics to the FBI.


I await your evidence

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I have to agree that if you were convicted of a violent felony with a gun you should be stripped of the right to own.


Then you agree with infringements

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> A foolish argument. Restrictions won't make you safer, but they could make you an easier target. 
> 
> Define what justifies a safe community.


The community gets to define it.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> As are you, and your opinions on this subject, while wrong, are noted.


Thank you for your opinion

----------


## Midgardian

> I await your evidence


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s.../10tbl08il.xls

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Then you agree with infringements



 :Flipoff:  This is for you and your Alinskyite tactics.

Don't worry, the other guy that always owns you will come over here as well. 
I agree with you're a moonbat. That's what I agree with.

Here's a link for deeper thinking:

The Obama Civilian Military  | The Last Refuge

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s.../10tbl08il.xls


Where does that say they don't report GUN HOMICIDES to the FBI

----------


## Midgardian

> Where does that say they don't report GUN HOMICIDES to the FBI


Gun homicides aren't violent crimes?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Gun homicides aren't violent crimes?


Violent crimes are listed separately than murder

----------


## Midgardian

> Violent crimes are listed separately than murder


First you said "gun homicide", now it is "murder".  

     By specifying gun homicides, you imply that some homicides are more equal that others.

Murder is murder - the tool is irrelevant.

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> First you said "gun homicide", now it is "murder".     You just betrayed a typical liberal position.
> 
>  By specifying gun homicides, you imply that some homicides are more equal that others.
> 
> Murder is murder - the tool is irrelevant.


Almost all murders in Chicago are by guns so please count either....and they are ranked 18th per capita

----------


## Midgardian

> Almost all murders in Chicago are by guns so please count either....


There you go talking vaguely again.

Want to impress me?  Get specific, and stop using terms like "most" and "almost all".

Also, if you really care about violence in Chicago then suggest solution to the problem - violent black people - instead of trying to make criminals out of law abiding gun owners.

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> There you go talking vaguely again.
> 
> Want to impress me?  Get specific, and stop using terms like "most" and "almost all".
> 
> Also, if you really care about violence in Chicago then suggest solution to the problem - violent black people - instead of trying to make criminals out of law abiding gun owners.


How is 18th in per capita murders not specific?   LOL

----------


## Midgardian

> and they are ranked 18th by capita.


I am sure that is a comforting thought to the families of the over 750 homicide victims in Chicago last year.

----------


## Midgardian

> How is 18th in per capita murders not specific?   LOL


Per capita is irrelevant - raw numbers are the real deal, and you said "almost".

Using the word "almost" means that you are being intentionally vague.

----------

MedicineBow (01-04-2017)

----------


## MedicineBow

I asked YOU what makes a safe community. If you can't define it then you shouldn't be arguing for their ability to enable restrictions.

 Communities don't get to decide my constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 You simply present circular arguments.




> The community gets to define it.

----------


## Midgardian

I think vegas giants is working for some cognitive dissonance operation.

Has he posted in any other threads?

----------


## Midgardian

These gun grabbers ought to just come right out and say that they hate the Constitution.

----------


## Tennyson

The murder rate per 100,000 in Chicago is 15.6. It is spiking at an alarming rate. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws. Firearm ownership has risen dramaticly while firearm murder rates have fallen over the past ten years. What has changed is the unexpected rise in homicide rates in 2015 due to liberals and the Ferguson effect.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Per capita is irrelevant - raw numbers are the real deal, and you said "almost".
> 
> Using the word "almost" means that you are being intentionally vague.


Where is the word almost in this sentence 
Chicago is 18th in per capita murders

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The murder rate per 100,000 in Chicago is 15.6. It is spiking at an alarming rate. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws. Firearm ownership has risen dramaticly while firearm murder rates have fallen over the past ten years. What has changed is the unexpected rise in homicide rates in 2015 due to liberals and the Ferguson effect.


Yeah and they are better than 17 other cities

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I asked YOU what makes a safe community. If you can't define it then you shouldn't be arguing for their ability to enable restrictions.
> 
>  Communities don't get to decide my constitutionally guaranteed rights.
> 
>  You simply present circular arguments.


Scotus does and they support infringements

----------


## Midgardian

> Where is the word almost in this sentence 
> Chicago is 18th in per capita murders


Nowhere, if that was a separate sentence that you had posted.

It isn't.

You posted the following:




> Almost all murders in Chicago are by guns so please count either....and they are ranked 18th per capita.


How much do you get paid to willfully ruin any credibility you may have had when you showed up?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Nowhere, if that was a separate sentence that you had posted.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> You posted the following:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you get paid to willfully ruin any credibility you may have had when you showed up?



Well now I cleared it up for you.  I posted the evidence.  They are 18th in per capita murders according to the FBI

----------


## Midgardian

I don't think that vegas giants understand that he has found a board of experienced political debaters who have seen and dealt with time and time again every liberal lie he is putting up.

Or maybe he doesn't care - what is it, $1.00/post?

----------

MrogersNhood (01-04-2017),Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

"A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

----------


## Tennyson

> Yeah and they are better than 17 other cities


 No.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No.


Factually....yes

----------


## MedicineBow

Clue time, the SCOTUS isn't a community. Bad attempt at deflection. Also, they rule on law. Legislators make law and the SCOTUS is supposed to determine it's validity based upon the constitution. 

Try comprehending what was written in the 2nd amendment.

If the SCOTUS supports an infringement it is an invalid law. The 2nd specifies no infringement.

 You've simply lost the argument.




> Scotus does and they support infringements

----------

Midgardian (01-04-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Almost everyone believes in some restrictions or infringements


Where's your poll to support that?

If ya'll notice, he doesn't reply to me.  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

That's because I've got his number.
 @vegas giants I see you still have no retort to this:

The Obama Civilian Military  | The Last Refuge

----------


## Midgardian

> Well now I cleared it up for you.  I posted the evidence.  They are 18th in per capita murders according to the FBI


Per capita, per spatita.

Do you think the mothers of the victims in Chicago care about per capita statistics?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I don't think that vegas giants understand that he has found a board of experienced political debaters who have seen and dealt with time and time again every liberal lie he is putting up.
> 
> Or maybe he doesn't care - what is it, $1.00/post?


Maybe you will make a point at some point.  LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Per capita, per spatita.
> 
> Do you think the mothers of the victims in Chicago care about per capita statistics?


Appeal to emotion.  I am sorry you don't understand statistics

----------


## Dan40

Ron White said it best.

*YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID.*

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Where's your poll to support that?


I would be happy to see your list of legal scholars that believe the second amendment should be taken literally.  Give me 5 and I will be shocked

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I would be happy to see your list of legal scholars that believe the second amendment should be taken literally.  Give me 5 and I will be shocked


Deflection! Put up or shut up, I say.

The onus is on you to provide proof.

----------


## Midgardian

> Maybe you will make a point at some point.  LOL


I haven't seen you address post #72 and post #100 yet.

If you think that they were pointless please tell us why.

----------


## Tennyson

> Factually....yes


No. The year 2016 was a record year for murders in Chicago. You are using old data.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Clue time, the SCOTUS isn't a community. Bad attempt at deflection. Also, they rule on law. Legislators make law and the SCOTUS is supposed to determine it's validity based upon the constitution. 
> 
> Try comprehending what was written in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> If the SCOTUS supports an infringement it is an invalid law. The 2nd specifies no infringement.
> 
>  You've simply lost the argument.


All I have is every member of SCOTUS for decades and virtually every legal scholar on my side....but then we have your opinion.   LOL

----------


## Midgardian

> Appeal to emotion.


You know the fallacies, do you?

Not very well.

I did not use an appeal to emotion, however you constantly have used appeals to authority and popularity in this thread.

I suggest a refresher course in logic and critical thinking.

Your local community college should be happy to oblige.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No. The year 2016 was a record year for murders in Chicago. You are using old data.


Provide the per capita 2016 data then.....you can't

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Deflection! Put up or shut up, I say.
> 
> The onus is on you to provide proof.


I accept your defeat

----------


## Tennyson

> I would be happy to see your list of legal scholars that believe the second amendment should be taken literally.  Give me 5 and I will be shocked


You brought up the majorty of legal scholars. You have yet to define what a legal scholar is and a list of these scholars and what they stated. You do not get to turn it around. That is trolling.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I accept your defeat


In other words you accept failure for providing proof, correct?

----------


## Midgardian

> I accept your defeat


Burden of proof is on you, mate.

Can't handle the heat?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You brought up the majorty of legal scholars. You have yet to define what a legal scholar is and a list of these scholars and what they stated. You do not get to turn it around. That is trolling.


I did provide a list.  Every member of scotus for the last 100 years

----------


## Tennyson

> Provide the per capita 2016 data then.....you can't


And neither can you as it is not available. That is my point. You have no current data.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I would be happy to see your list of legal scholars that believe the second amendment should be taken literally.  Give me 5 and I will be shocked


You don't have any proof because you pulled that assertion straight out of your colon.

----------


## Tennyson

> I did provide a list.  Every member of scotus for the last 100 years


No.

----------


## Midgardian

This isn't going well for vegas giants.

----------

MedicineBow (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No.


Yes.  Hey this is easy.  LOL

----------


## Tennyson

> This isn't going well for vegas giants.


The character is pure troll.

----------

MedicineBow (01-04-2017),Midgardian (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Yes.  Hey this is easy.  LOL


Fabrications and regurgitating talking points is always easy.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Fabrications and regurgitating talking points is always easy.


Your response is to simply say no.  And you complain about me?   That is hilarious.

----------


## Midgardian

> Your response is to simply say no.  And you complain about me?   That is hilarious.


Are you ever going to address post #72 and post #100 - or are you acknowledging that I am right and you are wrong?

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Your response is to simply say no.  And you complain about me?   That is hilarious.


You have dodged everything. A no is appropriate. 

Let's try it again. Pick any Supreme Court ruling and defend the constitutional basis of the ruling. It had been established that you will not, as that is the nature of trolls, but why not another chance to show your stripes.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> This is very simple.
> 
> The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for the security of a free state.
> 
> Thus, there must be a well regulated militia.
> 
> Well regulated means to be "equipped, maintained, and capable."
> 
> To effect this, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ...


This is so much nonsense that it has nothing to do with the point of this thread

----------


## Midgardian

> You have dodged everything. A no is appropriate. 
> 
> Let's try it again. Pick any Supreme Court ruling and defend the constitutional basis of the ruling. It had been established that you will not, as that is the nature of trolls, but why not another chance to show your stripes.


That would require him to think and be specific instead of talking vaguely, and it would significantly a slow down his posting rate...

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You have dodged everything. A no is appropriate. 
> 
> Let's try it again. Pick any Supreme Court ruling and defend the constitutional basis of the ruling. It had been established that you will not, as that is the nature of trolls, but why not another chance to show your stripes.


Don't run.  You said no when I said every member of scotus for the last 100 years does not believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment.  be a man and name one and prove me wrong.  Stop running

----------


## Midgardian

> This is so much nonsense that it has nothing to do with the point of this thread


Translation: "I can't refute any of it so instead of trying I will punt." 

Thanks!

I win.

----------

Tennyson (01-04-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Don't run.  You said no when I said every member of scotus for the last 100 years does not believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment.  be a man and name one and prove me wrong.  Stop running


You have dodged everything. A no is appropriate.

 Let's try it again. Pick any Supreme Court ruling and defend the constitutional basis of the ruling. It had been established that you will not, as that is the nature of trolls, but why not another chance to show your stripes.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That would require him to think and be specific instead of talking vaguely, and it would significantly a slow down his posting rate...


Remember always attack the poster not the argument....make it personal.  LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You have dodged everything. A no is appropriate. Let's try it again. Pick any Supreme Court ruling and defend the constitutional basis of the ruling. It had been established that you will not, as that is the nature of trolls, but why not another chance to show your stripes.


No.   LOL

----------


## Midgardian

Interesting, I talk about the purpose of the Second Amendment in post #72.

The Second Amendment contains the words, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yet, the OP claims it has nothing to do with a thread about infringements on that right.

LOL!

----------


## Midgardian

> Remember always attack the poster not the argument....make it personal.  LOL


We are waiting for you to follow your own advice.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Interesting, I talk about the purpose of the Second Amendment in post #72.
> 
> The Second Amendment contains the words, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Yet, the OP claims it has nothing to do with a thread about infringements on that right.
> 
> LOL!


And you make no case.  LOL

----------


## Midgardian

> And you make no case.  LOL


Attacking the poster instead of the argument again, I see.

Are you afraid of my case?

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Don't run.  You said no when I said every member of scotus for the last 100 years does not believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment.  be a man and name one and prove me wrong.  Stop running


Name 10 that said they didn't. See how that works?  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Also post their quotes.

----------


## Tennyson

> Interesting, I talk about the purpose of the Second Amendment in post #72.
> 
> The Second Amendment contains the words, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Yet, the OP claims it has nothing to do with a thread about infringements on that right.
> 
> LOL!


The guy is a troll. The novelty has worn off for me. He is a kamikaze troll who has no intention of staying. He has probably been banned from more forums than he can count.

----------

MedicineBow (01-04-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Name 10 that said they didn't. See how that works? 
>  Also post their quotes.


Nah

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The guy is a troll. The novelty has worn off for me. He is a kamikaze troll who has no intention of staying. He has probably been banned from more forums than he can count.


You can stop anytime.  You must be tired of running.  LOL

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Nah


As I thought.

Pure rhetoric.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> As I thought.
> 
> Pure rhetoric.


Okey dokey pokie

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Okey dokey pokie


I hope you get the awesome banhammer GIF

----------


## Midgardian

> The guy is a troll. The novelty has worn off for me. He is a kamikaze troll who has no intention of staying. He has probably been banned from more forums than he can count.


Someone named vegas giants joined Political Forum in January 2016.

That name has since been banned.

Last post was today, and was about gun control.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I hope you get the awesome banhammer GIF


Does mean the debate is over?   LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Someone named vegas giants joined Political Forum in January 2016.
> 
> That name has since been banned.


Remember ....go personal

----------


## Midgardian

> Remember ....go personal


Its what you do.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Its what you do.


Hey.....we have something in common.   LOL

----------


## Midgardian

"The founders are not in charge anymore".

No, really?

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Hey.....we have something in common.   LOL


Yes, we've both been banned from PF.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> "The founders are not in charge anymore"/
> 
> No, really?


I'm glad we agree.  LOL

----------


## Tennyson

> Someone named vegas giants joined Political Forum in January 2016.
> 
> That name has since been banned.
> 
> Last post was today, and was about gun control.


Ha, just as I thought.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

Anybody wish to get back to the point of this thread?

----------


## Midgardian

> Anybody wish to get back to the point of this thread?


You are free to address post #72 and post #100 anytime.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You are free to address post #72 and post #100 anytime.


I did.  Its pointless nonsense

----------


## Midgardian

> I did.  Its pointless nonsense


Translation: "I didn't address it because Midgardian is right and I don't know how to counter it without making myself look more foolish than I already do."

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Translation: "I didn't address it because Midgardian is right and I don't know how to counter it without making myself look more foolish than I already do."


Nah.  Its just pointless nonsense

----------


## Midgardian

> Nah.  Its just pointless nonsense


OK, explain why.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> OK, explain why.


It is not relevant to the point.

----------


## Midgardian

> It is not relevant to the point.


Sure it is. 

I explained the purpose of the Second Amendment - which states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Your "point" or argument is that the right to keep and bear arms can and should be infringed.

Post #72 goes directly to the heart of the matter, and I suspect that you know it, which is why you are dancing around avoiding addressing what I wrote.

If your argument is so strong, you should not have any problem refuting my post.

You said that you want the thread to move ahead, so get to it.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Sure it is. 
> 
> I explained the purpose of the Second Amendment - which states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Your "point" or argument is that the right to keep and bear arms can and should be infringed.
> 
> Post #72 goes directly to the heart of the matter, and I suspect that you know it, which is why you are dancing around avoiding addressing what I wrote.
> 
> If your argument is so strong, you should not have any problem refuting my post.
> ...


My point is should the word infringed be taken literally.  You basically said yes it should but provided no reason.  That is pointless.

----------


## Midgardian

> My point is should the word infringed be taken literally.  You basically said yes it should but provided no reason.  That is pointless.


I did provide the reason

Did you even bother to read the post?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I did provide the reason
> 
> Did you even bother to read the post?


It was a lot of rambling nonsense that had nothing to do with this thread.

----------


## Midgardian

> It was a lot of rambling nonsense that had nothing to do with this thread.


Well there is your problem.

It was not rambling, nor nonsense, and it has everything to do with the thread.

I note that you did not say that you read it, so you probably did not.

No wonder your posts concerning post #72 are so uninformed.

Now if your attention span is really so short and your intellectual capacity so low that you can't take the time to read and process the clearly and logically stated analysis Midgardian presented in post #72, then perhaps you could address post #100 - a much shorter but no less scintillating and formidable argument presented by yours truly?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Well there is your problem.
> 
> It was not rambling, nor nonsense, and it has everything to do with the thread.
> 
> I note that you did not say that you read it, so you probably did not.
> 
> No wonder your posts concerning post #72 are so uninformed.
> 
> Now if your attention span is really so short and your intellectual capacity so low that you can't take the time to read and process the clearly and logically stated analysis Midgardian presented in post #72, then perhaps you could address post #100 - a much shorter but no less scintillating and formidable argument presented by yours truly?


No thanks

----------


## Midgardian

> No thanks


Well thank you for your honesty.

You read neither, your opinions of them are uninformed as a result, and you are not here to debate (since you won't read opposing points of view which require you to think rather than mindlessly react with typical leftist gun grabber talking points) but to troll.

Absolutely pathetic.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Well thank you for your honesty.
> 
> You read neither, your opinions of them are uninformed as a result, and you are not here to debate (since you won't read opposing points of view which require you to think rather than mindlessly react with typical leftist gun grabber talking points) but to troll.
> 
> Absolutely pathetic.


I am absolutely here to debate.  Post something worthy of debate and I am all over it.  You ramble on with nonsense which is not debate.  Bring something to the table if you want debate

----------


## Midgardian

> I am absolutely here to debate.  Post something worthy of debate and I am all over it.


Since you won't even read post #72 or post #100, you are in no position to pass judgment on their worthiness. 

You could have read both, thought about them, and responded with something approaching critical analysis during the last couple of hours.

You still can.

I don't expect an instant response, on the contrary I hope that you will read those posts and take your time formulating a thoughtful reply instead of summarily dismissing them because you know they don't match your view of the subject.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

I have read them both.   Please show exactly how they are related to this thread

----------


## Midgardian

> I have read them both.   Please show exactly how they are related to this thread


That is self-evident, _if_ you read the posts. 

Why not stop deflecting and address the posts?

No one here takes you seriously, and you could help your reputation if you would simply respond to my arguments in post #72 and post #100.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That is self-evident, _if_ you read the posts. 
> 
> Why not stop deflecting and address the posts?
> 
> No one here takes you seriously, and you could help your reputation if you would simply respond to my arguments in post #72 and post #100.


If it is self evident then post it.   Don't ask people to dig thru your old posts.  Make your point and it will be addressed.

----------


## Midgardian

vegas giants shift may be ending, or maybe he just doesn't know how to keep his post count rising without his reputation being further impeached.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> vegas giants shift may be ending, or maybe he just doesn't know how to keep his post count rising without his reputation being further impeached.


If you are unable to make an argument then I guess you are done

----------


## Midgardian

> If it is self evident then post it.   Don't ask people to dig thru your old posts.  Make your point and it will be addressed.


I made my point, and you would know it if you had bothered to read either post. 

If you didn't read the first one, why would I expect you to read a second one?

See, you are being a troll - but denying it.

You are a waste of bandwidth, and of course you will respond with "you are attacking me personally instead of my argument".

That is exactly what you wanted, and what you have been doing yourself, isn't it?

What does your manual say to do now?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> vegas giants shift may be ending, or maybe he just doesn't know how to keep his post count rising without his reputation being further impeached.


And remember.....always attack the person not the argument

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I made my point, and you would know it if you had bothered to read either post. 
> 
> If you didn't read the first one, why would I expect you to read a second one?


If you can not post your point then you can't.  Ok

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I made my point, and you would know it if you had bothered to read either post. 
> 
> If you didn't read the first one, why would I expect you to read a second one?


Wouldn't it just have been easier for you by now just to post your point?  Lol

----------


## Midgardian

> And remember.....always attack the person not the argument


Will you follow your own advice, Alisnkyite?

----------


## Big Dummy

> If you are unable to make an argument then I guess you are done


The same can be said of you, troll.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Will you follow your own advice, Alisnkyite?


Another attack on the person.....you must have nothing else.   Lol

----------


## Midgardian

> Wouldn't it just have been easier for you by now just to post your point?  Lol


Wouldn't have been easier for you to just post your response to my post (which you have not read) rather than troll your own thread?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The same can be said of you, troll.


More personal attacks....anyone care to debate the actual point of the thread?   Lol

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Wouldn't have been easier for you to just post your response to my post (which you have not read) rather than troll your own thread?


Ok still nothing....lol

----------


## Tennyson

> vegas giants shift may be ending, or maybe he just doesn't know how to keep his post count rising without his reputation being further impeached.


Trolls need responses like we need oxygen. No oxygen and we die. No responses and trolls die. Their primary goal is to suck people into their vacuous petty back and forths.

----------


## Midgardian

> Another attack on the person.....you must have nothing else.   Lol


I have plenty, but you won't read it.

Just seeking attention now, aren't you troll?

Want some respect?

Respond intelligently to either post #72 or post #100.

As if you care about respect.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I have plenty, but you won't read it.
> 
> Just seeking attention now, aren't you troll?
> 
> Want some respect?
> 
> Respond intelligently to either post #72 or post #100.
> 
> As if you care about respect.


I have no intention of digging thru your old posts.  Lol

----------


## Midgardian

> Trolls need responses like we need oxygen. No oxygen and we die. No responses and trolls die. Their primary goal is to suck people into their vacuous petty back and forths.


Yeah, we will all stop feeding him and he will claim that he "won".

----------


## Midgardian

> I have no intention of digging thru your old posts.  Lol


I knew that you have no intention of engaging in debate, you don't have to say so explicitly.

----------

AlphaOmega (01-05-2017)

----------


## Tennyson

> Yeah, we will all stop feeding him and he will claim that he "won".


He has already made that claim. That is what they do. That is a tactic to suck people in further. Fortunately no one will take him seriously as they do not now.

----------

Midgardian (01-05-2017)

----------


## nonsqtr

> So I pose this question.  Should the second amendment be taken literally?  Does shall not be infringed mean that people should be able to have any arms anywhere anytime?


Sigh. 

(Yep, must be a liberal. HOWEVER, it's a legitimate question, so...)

Yes, silly liberal. Everything in the Constitution is to be taken literally. That's what words are for, that's what the English language is for. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If it says, "shall not infringe" then that's exactly what it means, and that IS the law, and goddamit you're welcome to change it but you're going to need a 2/3 vote of both Houses and 3/4 of the State legislatures and if you can't get that then TOO FUCKING BAD.

Now - that being said, we are talking about the federal government. Note that the Second Amendment speaks specifically of "the security of a free State", and the Tenth Amendment specifically says that anything that isn't in the federal purview belongs to the States (and the People, via their representatives) - ergo, weapons regulation falls legally and constitutionally to the States. Each state individually. One state may regulate, another may not - and if people feel strongly enough they're welcome to move where weapons are freely traded and carried. The law says the federal government may not get involved in this activity. That's what the highest law in our land says.

And yes, it is the law. That's exactly what it says, and that's exactly what it means.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (01-05-2017),MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## AlphaOmega

> Actually it says to keep and BEAR arms.  Bear as in carrying


Read the two words right before that

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Because in modern times we need restrictions to maintain a safe community


When was there a time when we had safe communities?    Besides, if there were no guns gangs, the largest single abusers of the right of gun ownership, would continue to find ways to kill their rivals.  The only real outcome of gun restrictions is the disarming of those who need guns the most.  

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment speaks entirely to the right of self defense against tyrannical governments.  And as Benjamin Franklin is so often quoted as saying:   Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Almost everyone believes in some restrictions or infringements


There you go again.  Making statements that can not be proven.   Define "almost everyone".  Besides in the 19th Century South "almost everyone believed that slavery was a legal principle and was actually good for the slaves".  So, according to your thesis since "almost everyone believes" then slavery was morally correct.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> More personal attacks....anyone care to debate the actual point of the thread?   Lol


the point of the post was discussed early on.  It is our opinion that the Constitution is not a living, breathing, forever changing document and what was written originally is what applies today.  The authors of the Constitution meant exactly what it says The Federal Government shall have no authority to restrict the rights of the people in the matter of ownership of ARMS.  Not just smooth bore rifles but all arms.  It is also important to understand the meaning of the words and phrases militia and well regulated when  the Constitution was written.  

You didn't get the answer you wanted so you have continued to argue circular arguments in an attempt to make yourself look far more informed that us simple plebeians.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Sigh. 
> 
> (Yep, must be a liberal. HOWEVER, it's a legitimate question, so...)
> 
> Yes, silly liberal. Everything in the Constitution is to be taken literally. That's what words are for, that's what the English language is for. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If it says, "shall not infringe" then that's exactly what it means, and that IS the law, and goddamit you're welcome to change it but you're going to need a 2/3 vote of both Houses and 3/4 of the State legislatures and if you can't get that then TOO FUCKING BAD.
> 
> Now - that being said, we are talking about the federal government. Note that the Second Amendment speaks specifically of "the security of a free State", and the Tenth Amendment specifically says that anything that isn't in the federal purview belongs to the States (and the People, via their representatives) - ergo, weapons regulation falls legally and constitutionally to the States. Each state individually. One state may regulate, another may not - and if people feel strongly enough they're welcome to move where weapons are freely traded and carried. The law says the federal government may not get involved in this activity. That's what the highest law in our land says.
> 
> And yes, it is the law. That's exactly what it says, and that's exactly what it means.



He doesn't care

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Trolls need responses like we need oxygen. No oxygen and we die. No responses and trolls die. Their primary goal is to suck people into their vacuous petty back and forths.


You can leave at any time.  You lost your argument long ago when you gave a single word as a response.  I think you are done here.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Sigh. 
> 
> (Yep, must be a liberal. HOWEVER, it's a legitimate question, so...)
> 
> Yes, silly liberal. Everything in the Constitution is to be taken literally. That's what words are for, that's what the English language is for. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If it says, "shall not infringe" then that's exactly what it means, and that IS the law, and goddamit you're welcome to change it but you're going to need a 2/3 vote of both Houses and 3/4 of the State legislatures and if you can't get that then TOO FUCKING BAD.
> 
> Now - that being said, we are talking about the federal government. Note that the Second Amendment speaks specifically of "the security of a free State", and the Tenth Amendment specifically says that anything that isn't in the federal purview belongs to the States (and the People, via their representatives) - ergo, weapons regulation falls legally and constitutionally to the States. Each state individually. One state may regulate, another may not - and if people feel strongly enough they're welcome to move where weapons are freely traded and carried. The law says the federal government may not get involved in this activity. That's what the highest law in our land says.
> 
> And yes, it is the law. That's exactly what it says, and that's exactly what it means.


If you had been following this thread you would have seem I asked over and over again that if that is true does that mean that a state can ban all guns....or a religion or free speech etc.  But no one can answer it.  Because they don't like the answer

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> the point of the post was discussed early on.  It is our opinion that the Constitution is not a living, breathing, forever changing document and what was written originally is what applies today.  The authors of the Constitution meant exactly what it says The Federal Government shall have no authority to restrict the rights of the people in the matter of ownership of ARMS.  Not just smooth bore rifles but all arms.  It is also important to understand the meaning of the words and phrases militia and well regulated when  the Constitution was written.  
> 
> You didn't get the answer you wanted so you have continued to argue circular arguments in an attempt to make yourself look far more informed that us simple plebeians.


You are entitled to that opinion.  But don't forget its an opinion not a fact.  One very few legal scholars agree with....maybe you are right and they are all wrong....but I doubt it.

----------


## NORAD

> You are entitled to that opinion.  But don't forget its an opinion not a fact.  One very few legal scholars agree with....maybe you are right and they are all wrong....but I doubt it.


What legal scholars?  

Unless you back your post up with facts and links, it's nothing but your opinion and not a fact.

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## Big Dummy

> You are entitled to that opinion.  But don't forget its an opinion not a fact.  One very few legal scholars agree with....maybe you are right and they are all wrong....but I doubt it.


Fact is we have laws that protect gun rights for individuals. You have an opinion that is contrary to intelligence,law and decency. Get over yourself, your fantasy of total control over all men is asinine and dangerous.

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> As well as any weapon that can be used against US citizens. The second amendment was/is not intended for putting food on the table or robbers. But from the rapscallions in government. We paid for the governments weapons.


This is quite an unusual response to questions posed against the Second, but one I am in absolute agreement with! 

As much as the OP wants to de-regulate and bust up the word "infringed" basically tells me he/she does not understand the meaning of the word. I guess by arguing that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe that right makes it okay to "infringe" upon this. 

The Founding Fathers did not include the Second because of the need to put food on the table as you noted, but to maintain an even playing field in matters of government irresponsibility.

The right of the militia in order to maintain a free state is allowed to be armed in order to maintain a free state. The people of a regulated militia must be armed therefore the right of the militia in order to maintain a free state is allowed to be armed.

"Shall" is a word that is used extensively in building codes. It means that laws, regulations, or directives to express what is *mandatory*. I am bound to follow building codes and regs that state "It SHALL be maintained . . ." Just as in the Second, the word, "Shall Not Be Infringed" means that there is no arguing against it. Period.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (01-05-2017),FirstGenCanadian (01-05-2017)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> But by that definition I could refuse to serve christians at my business because it is against my religion to do so.  This is currently illegal.


evidently not so with regards to mooslum businesses in the US. They get the right to not serve gays.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> You are entitled to that opinion.  But don't forget its an opinion not a fact.  One very few legal scholars agree with....maybe you are right and they are all wrong....but I doubt it.



Legal scholars have believed in a lot of erroneous ideas over the course of history.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> What legal scholars?  
> 
> Unless you back your post up with facts and links, it's nothing but your opinion and not a fact.


There is not a member of SCOTUS in the last 100 years that believes the word infringed should be taken literally.  Look this is easy.  Just fine me 5 legal scholars who believe the opposite.  Just 5.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Chicago is ranked 18th in per capita gun homicides.  I think that is pretty good.  Also states with the highest gun ownership and most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.  Oh and they are all run by the GOP.  But I suppose we are derailing.


I call Bullshit on this one. See post 57 for clarity.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Fact is we have laws that protect gun rights for individuals. You have an opinion that is contrary to intelligence,law and decency. Get over yourself, your fantasy of total control over all men is asinine and dangerous.


Now that is definetely an opinion.  LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I call Bullshit on this one. See post 57 for clarity.


I posted my evidence

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Legal scholars have believed in a lot of erroneous ideas over the course of history.


It is an opinion....but clearly it is the mainstream opinion.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> As for Chicago, the Pew Research Center published a report in 2014 that found that while Chicago had seen a lot of murders in raw numbers, smaller cities had a higher rate, adjusted for population. Using FBI data  with the caveat that it is reported by local police agencies and not always consistently  the Pew Research Center determined that the top cities in 2012 for the murder rate were Flint, Michigan; Detroit; New Orleans; and Jackson, Mississippi. Chicago came in 21st
> 
> Here is one that uses FBI data
> 
> https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chi...r-capita-rate/


That is NOT the one the FBI uses. It is an article in The Trace by Francesca Mirabile. In fact, this is what your article states:

When it comes to the sheer amount of violent crime victims, no other  city comes close to Chicago. In 2015, there were 478 people murdered in  the city, more than in any other U.S. city. New York, with 352  homicides, recorded the second-highest number of murders, followed by  Baltimore with 344. Almost everyone who was killed in Chicago that year   93 percent  was shot to death.

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> It is an opinion....but clearly it is the mainstream opinion.


I don't think so, you will have to provide more than just your opinion here.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> That is NOT the one the FBI uses. It is an article in The Trace by Francesca Mirabile. In fact, this is what your article states:
> 
> When it comes to the sheer amount of violent crime victims, no other  city comes close to Chicago. In 2015, there were 478 people murdered in  the city, more than in any other U.S. city. New York, with 352  homicides, recorded the second-highest number of murders, followed by  Baltimore with 344. Almost everyone who was killed in Chicago that year —  93 percent — was shot to death.


Look at where they got their data.  Go ahead post the FBI data directly....you get the same answer.   LOL

----------


## NORAD

> There is not a member of SCOTUS in the last 100 years that believes the word infringed should be taken literally.  Look this is easy.  Just fine me 5 legal scholars who believe the opposite.  Just 5.


Nope, I asked YOU to ante up and back up your claims first.

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Nope, I asked YOU to ante up and back up your claims first.


I did.

----------


## Midgardian

> Nope, I asked YOU to ante up and back up your claims first.


I asked vegas giants to respond to my posts #72 and #100, but he refuses to even read them.

He has lost the debate by abdicating even a pretense of engaging in one.

This guy is not intellectually honest and is a liberal.

Am I repeating myself? I am?

Am I repeating myself? I am?

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> I did.


If you were so sure of your position you would read and respond to post #72 or post #100.

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

Post anything  and I will respond

----------


## Midgardian

> Post anything  and I will respond


I did.

See post #72 and post #100.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> The rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, *guaranteed* in the Second Amendment, should be given the same deference as the other liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. *The founders had the foresight and wisdom to guarantee this fundamental right, and it is our duty as members of Congress to staunchly defend all of the freedoms granted by the Constitution, not pick and choose based on political motivations.*
> *As a federal prosecutor for six years*, I prosecuted federal firearms violations. As a state prosecutor I saw the devastating effects of gun violence on countless victims—including children. I saw firsthand those who are criminally disposed will not be deterred by yet another federal firearms statute or regulation. It is my belief we must enforce existing gun laws and examine the culture of violence before we create new gun control laws.
> Second Amendment | Congressman Trey Gowdy

----------

Canadianeye (01-05-2017),Knightkore (01-05-2017),MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## AlphaOmega

> Post anything  and I will respond


I see you pull the same crap here as over at pf.  Ill explain it again here.  
A response is not an answer unless it actually includes the answer.
What does 2+2 equal?
Answer: 4
Response: peanut butter.  <leftists void of intelligence claim they answered when they responded.

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017),FirstGenCanadian (01-05-2017),MrogersNhood (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I see you pull the same crap here as over at pf.  Ill explain it again here.  
> A response is not an answer unless it actually includes the answer.
> What does 2+2 equal?
> Answer: 4
> Response: peanut butter.  <leftists void of intelligence claim they answered when they responded.


But there's no "Gun Control" section here.  :Occasion14:

----------


## AlphaOmega

> But there's no "Gun Control" section here.


No leftist mommy moderator to hide behind and wipe your snots either.

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I did.



No, like most liberal shit for brains you merely quoted yourself.  

One thing I have noticed about this forum is  that we enjoy a good debate.  However, we loathe self proclaimed "experts" who only offer up liberal spewing from the latest progressive website.

----------

AlphaOmega (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## Knightkore

I propose a new question:  Should we take vegas giants literally?

----------

AlphaOmega (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I propose a new question:  Should we take vegas giants literally?



I wondered about that myself.  The answer I came up with was not just no but HELL NO.  He is nothing more than a contrarian who delights in posting nonsense.

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017),Knightkore (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I see you pull the same crap here as over at pf.  Ill explain it again here.  
> A response is not an answer unless it actually includes the answer.
> What does 2+2 equal?
> Answer: 4
> Response: peanut butter.  <leftists void of intelligence claim they answered when they responded.


Post anything and I will respond to it

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I wondered about that myself.  The answer I came up with was not just no but HELL NO.  He is nothing more than a contrarian who delights in posting nonsense.


You can leave at any time

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No, like most liberal shit for brains you merely quoted yourself.  
> 
> One thing I have noticed about this forum is  that we enjoy a good debate.  However, we loathe self proclaimed "experts" who only offer up liberal spewing from the latest progressive website.


I love a good debate too.  When can we start?

----------


## AlphaOmega

> Post anything and I will respond to it


Yeah thats pretty much what I pointed out above regarding leftist intelligence.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> You can leave at any time


I think you vaginal gnats, will be the one leaving shortly.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I think you vaginal gnats, will be the one leaving shortly.


I am here and ready for honest debate whenever anyone is finished with the personal attacks.  LOL

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I propose a new question:  Should we take vegas giants literally?


No. Well, yes in that he's started about 200+ threads like this. Always attacking the 2nd amendment.

Once in a great while an Anti-Trump thread.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No. Well, yes in that he's started about 200+ threads like this. Always attacking the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Once in a great while an Anti-Trump thread.


That is called debate.  Would you prefer a forum where everyone agrees with you?

----------


## Midgardian

> I love a good debate too.  When can we start?


You can start by reading and responding to post #72 and post #100.

But you don't, because you are not interested in debating.

You wish to troll.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

If you want to debate....post something

----------


## Midgardian

> If you want to debate....post something


I have - you won't read it.

See post #72 and post #100.

What are you afraid of?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

I will not dig thru old posts.  Post it here and I will be happy to respond to it.  Posts that are days old are out of context

----------


## Midgardian

> I will not dig thru old posts.  Post it here and I will be happy to respond to it.  Posts that are days old are out of context


Nope, not how it works.

You started the thread. Post #72 was a rebuttal to your opening post and post #100 was in direct response to one of your comments.

You have addressed neither - which makes a lie of you wanting to debate.

No one takes you seriously, but that usually doesn't bother trolls like yourself.

----------

Rickity Plumber (01-05-2017)

----------


## tiny1

> I have - you won't read it.
> 
> See post #72 and post #100.
> 
> What are you afraid of?


Don't Feed the Troll. :Thumbsup20:

----------

Knightkore (01-05-2017),MrogersNhood (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

Post it in the current context and I will reply.  Or dont.

----------


## Dan40

> Simple facts.


You need help with editing.  I'll help.

"False facts by a simpleton."

NOW your post is correct.


ACTUAL FACTS:

11 worst cities for gun deaths, in order.  And their long time political rule.

Detroit* D
*
Baltimore* D*

New Orleans *D*

Oakland *D
*
Memphis *D*

Cleveland *D*

Philadelphia *D
*
Kansas City MO *D*

Chicago* D*

Milwaukee* D*

Tulsa* R


*The first 10 worst cities with a* D for DUMB* voted for the criminal clinton.

#11 voted for Trump.

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You need help with editing.  I'll help.
> 
> "False facts by a simpleton."
> 
> NOW your post is correct.


Or just facts.  LOL

----------


## texmaster

> I am here and ready for honest debate whenever anyone is finished with the personal attacks.  LOL


Spare us your bullshit.  We already know you were banned from another site for personal attacks.


View Profile: Vegas giants - Political Forum

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## Canadianeye

> Spare us your bullshit.  We already know you were banned from another site for personal attacks.


I betcha his personal attacks are the bestest around!! :Dontknow:

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Spare us your bullshit.  We already know you were banned from another site for personal attacks.
> 
> 
> View Profile: Vegas giants - Political Forum


Remember...keep it personal....avoid the actual argument at all costs

----------


## texmaster

> I betcha his personal attacks are the bestest around!!


From what I've heard especially from the rear!

----------


## texmaster

> Remember...keep it personal....avoid the actual argument at all costs


It wasn't personal.  It was exposing your lie about personal attacks.

Try to keep up.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> From what I've heard especially from the rear!


That's right....avoid the argument

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You need help with editing.  I'll help.
> 
> "False facts by a simpleton."
> 
> NOW your post is correct.
> 
> 
> ACTUAL FACTS:
> 
> ...


I see no evidence but now try it by state.  And make sure you put that letter in the right spot.  LOL

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## Canadianeye

> It wasn't personal.  It was exposing your lie about personal attacks.
> 
> Try to keep up.


I can barely keep up...with your avatars giants.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## Dan40

> Or just facts.  LOL


You need to do basic research.  An oft repeated lie added to stupid posts is not a fact.

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## texmaster

> That's right....avoid the argument


Just avoid my ass junior.  I've heard about you.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> It wasn't personal.  It was exposing your lie about personal attacks.
> 
> Try to keep up.


Remember make sure you never discuss the actual point of the thread.  Very important

----------


## Midgardian

> That's right....avoid the argument


Talking about yourself, are you?

Post #72 and post #100.

----------

Rickity Plumber (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## texmaster

> You need to do basic research.  An oft repeated lie added to stupid posts is not a fact.


You are seeing him at his best.   Just don't turn your back on him.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Just avoid my ass junior.  I've heard about you.


Well Hi....its nice to meet you.  LOL

----------


## texmaster

> Well Hi....its nice to meet you.  LOL


No, it isn't.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You need to do basic research.  An oft repeated lie added to stupid posts is not a fact.


Post your evidence.  I would love to see it.

----------


## Midgardian

> Post it in the current context and I will reply.  Or dont.


The current context is the thread that you started - this one.

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The current context is the thread that you started - this one.


Great.  Then post it.  I would LOVE to debate it

----------


## tiny1

Why oh why would you folks stoop so low as to humor a kid posting nonsense from his Momma's Basement.

Ignore the Troll.

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017),MrogersNhood (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Great.  Then post it.  I would LOVE to debate it


See post #72 and post #100, within this thread.

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> See post #72 and post #100, within this thread.


Ok let me know when you are ready to post them here

----------


## Midgardian

> Ok let me know when you are ready to post them here


I did post them here.

----------


## Dan40

> You are seeing him at his best.   Just don't turn your back on him.


Best, worst, he is just a constantly lying, childish fool, desperate for mommy's attention.

Of zero actual importance.

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I did post them here.


Oh great.  Lets see them

----------


## Midgardian

> Oh great.  Lets see them


Not your mommy - be a big boy and read them yourself.

You know the numbers - you just don't want to have a serious debate - which makes you a liar.

----------

texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> I will not dig thru old posts.  Post it here and I will be happy to respond to it.  Posts that are days old are out of context


Hey, Guess what VG, His posts ARE NOT DAYS OLD. It was yesterday! AND they are relevant to the thread. Everything is relevant to the thread except your nonsense. 


Why don't you give up?

----------

Midgardian (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> I will not dig thru old posts.  Post it here and I will be happy to respond to it.  Posts that are days old are out of context


Have you ever looked up the meaning of "Infringed" lately?

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Hey, Guess what VG, His posts ARE NOT DAYS OLD. It was yesterday! AND they are relevant to the thread. Everything is relevant to the thread except your nonsense. 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give up?


Let him make his point here and i will address it.

----------


## tiny1

​don't feed the troll!!!

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Not your mommy - be a big boy and read them yourself.
> 
> You know the numbers - you just don't want to have a serious debate - which makes you a liar.


Let me know when you are ready.  Is it you don't want to dig theu old posts and have to cut and paste them again into a new post?  Yeah that sounds like a hassle.  To me as well. LOL

----------


## Midgardian

> Let him make his point here and i will address it.


"Here" is this thread, and those posts exist in this thread. \

You have the opportunity to address them but you will not even read them.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> "Here" is this thread, and those posts exist in this thread. \
> 
> You have the opportunity to address them but you will not even read them.


Ok.  Do the work.  Cut and paste them into a new post So i can address each point.  I will not do it for you.

----------


## Midgardian

> Let me know when you are ready.  Is it you don't want to dig theu old posts and have to cut and paste them again into a new post?  Yeah that sounds like a hassle.  To me as well. LOL


Why should I cut and paste something that I already posted? 

That is redundant.

You can easily go post #72 and post #100, and reply to them with no cutting or pasting necessary.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Why should I cut and paste something that I already posted? 
> 
> That is redundant.
> 
> You can easily go post #72 and post #100, and reply to them with no cutting or pasting necessary.


And how would you know which line i was referring to if the actual post is not here?  I am not digging thru old posts for you

----------


## Midgardian

> I am not digging thru old posts for you


You are not interested in having a debate, in other words.

Got it.

----------


## Midgardian

> And state constitutions can be changed.  .


The U.S. constitution can be changed too - its called the amendment process.

Wouldn't your time be more productively spent trying to amend the 2nd Amendment?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> The U.S. constitution can be changed too - its called the amendment process.
> 
> Wouldn't your time be more productively spent trying to amend the 2nd Amendment?


Nah....no need to

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You are not interested in having a debate, in other words.
> 
> Got it.


Okey dokey

----------


## Midgardian

> Nah....no need to


Oops. 

That post was from over 24 hours ago.

I thought that you didn't discuss issues that were not raised on the same day.

----------


## Big Dummy

> You can leave at any time


You can be assaultted at anytime. You can be carjacked at anytime. You can be mugged at anytime. You home can be invaded at anytime. You can call 911 for any problem, they can come at anytime, but always too late. So what is your answer to these truths?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> You can be assaultted at anytime. You can be carjacked at anytime. You can be mugged at anytime. You home can be invaded at anytime. You can call 911 for any problem, they can come at anytime, but always too late. So what is your answer to these truths?


My answer is YES those things are true.  They are true all over the world.  Even in countries with effective gun control

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> My answer is YES those things are true.  They are true all over the world.  Even in countries with effective gun control


Effective gun control...

What the hell is that?

----------


## Big Dummy

> My answer is YES those things are true.  They are true all over the world.  Even in countries with effective gun control


So you and the world has no solution to evil violent people. Yet you propose to take away self defense ability and rights. Where is the logic in that?

----------

FirstGenCanadian (01-05-2017)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> So you and the world has no solution to evil violent people. Yet you propose to take away self defense ability and rights. Where is the logic in that?


It's never been about logic.  It's all about warm fuzzy feelings.  Guns make them feel icky.  So they should be banned.  

When they don't get results, and find that the death toll rises, and they have no way to defend themselves.  Then they will wish they had followed our advise, and shut the hell up.  But, no.  They think that the sun was made for them, and the world should be ever grateful that they were born.

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> So you and the world has no solution to evil violent people. Yet you propose to take away self defense ability and rights. Where is the logic in that?


Because it works in every first world country with gun control.  We should try doing what works.

----------


## Tennyson

Fabricating data about gun control in other countries _vis-a-vis_ the US is not an effective debate tactic.

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Fabricating data about gun control in other countries _vis-a-vis_ the US is not an effective debate tactic.


I agree.  Don't do that

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Because it works in every first world country with gun control.  We should try doing what works.


I doesn't work.  

If it did, you American Liberals would be here in Canada, or England.

I love the lies...

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

The heart of the Liberal lie.  They won't live where these so called area's of extreme gun control exist.  Because TRUTH would be so resounding, they couldn't lie to themselves anymore.  

We have a lot of gun violence here in Canada.  People are murdered in Toronto, Ontario, by guns.  Shots fired daily.  Gun controls are only for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The citizens are not being shot by cops.  But boy do BLM in Toronto go on a rampage every time a cop defends himself, or looks to be aggressive.






















Year End Shootings




Last Year to Previous


Updated: 2017.01.03
2013
2014
2015
2016
Percent Change
Absolute Change


Occurrences
205
178
299
410
37.1%
111


Victims
281
243
442
581
31.4%
139


Shooting Injury Level








Death
22
27
26
40
53.8%
14


Injuries
123
77
137
154
12.4%
17


No injuries
81
52
174
221
27.0%
47


Unknown
55
87
105
166
58.1%
61


Grand Total
281
243
442
581
31.4%
139




















Year End Homicides
2013
2014
2015
2016
Percemt Change
Absolute Change


Stabbing
14
15
18
9
-50.0%
-9


Shooting
22
27
26
40
53.8%
14


Other
21
16
12
20
66.7%
8


Grand Total
57
58
56
69
23.2%
13












Toronto Police Service :: To Serve and Protect

So go ahead, with your head in the clouds and tell me how gun control helps.  I hope the lying to yourself make you feel good, warm and fuzzy inside.  Reality is far colder.  And it don't care about your precious feelings.

----------

Big Dummy (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## Big Dummy

> Because it works in every first world country with gun control.  We should try doing what works.


What is working? No where there is gun control have evil people and evil deeds been stopped. 


The second A works. There are millions of success stories to prove it.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> What is working? No where there is gun control have evil people and evil deeds been stopped. 
> 
> The second A works. There are millions of success stories to prove it.


The goal is harm reduction not harm elimination.  That is like saying we should abandon air bags because some people still die in car accidents.

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> The goal is harm reduction not harm elimination.  That is like saying we should abandon air bags because some people still die in car accidents.


Another Liberal lie.  As in the graph I posted previous which this poster cannot see, since it blocked me, shows that harm is only increasing.

----------


## Big Dummy

> The goal is harm reduction not harm elimination.  That is like saying we should abandon air bags because some people still die in car accidents.


Harm reduction, How? What You propose , victims get multiplied.

air bag stops a car from killing you. Guns prevent an evil person from killing you. You propose to remove seat belts and air bags with your control. 

You are a troll nothing more. Enjoy your last bit of attention.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Harm reduction, How? What You propose , victims get multiplied.
> 
> air bag stops a car from killing you. Guns prevent an evil person from killing you. You propose to remove seat belts and air bags with your control. 
> 
> You are a troll nothing more. Enjoy your last bit of attention.


Gun control reduces gun deaths.  The evidence is clear

----------


## Tennyson

> The heart of the Liberal lie.  They won't live where these so called area's of extreme gun control exist.  Because TRUTH would be so resounding, they couldn't lie to themselves anymore.  
> 
> We have a lot of gun violence here in Canada.  People are murdered in Toronto, Ontario, by guns.  Shots fired daily.  Gun controls are only for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The citizens are not being shot by cops.  But boy do BLM in Toronto go on a rampage every time a cop defends himself, or looks to be aggressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anti-gun liberals always try to parade around other countries but have no idea that the firearm homicide rates are consistent around the would and the US has a lower rate when areas of population are factored in. They also cannot explain the sudden increase in the firearm homicide rate in Australia. 

They also have to fabricate that gun control reduces gun related homicides.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Anti-gun liberals always try to parade around other countries but have no idea that the firearm homicide rates are consistent around the would and the US has a lower rate when areas of population are factored in. They also cannot explain the sudden increase in the firearm homicide rate in Australia.


Please show your evidence.  We have statistically WAY higher gun deaths than any first world nation with gun control

----------


## MrogersNhood

> That is called debate.  Would you prefer a forum where everyone agrees with you?


This is how it is: Your posts are on par with ivwshane and Andrew Jackson. Two total turds.

This is the category you fall into. Sweet!

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Gun control reduces gun deaths.  The evidence is clear


Not in Chicago.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Not in Chicago.


Chicago is ranked 18th per capita.  They are a GREAT example

----------


## Dan40

> Please show your evidence.  We have statistically WAY higher gun deaths than any first world nation with gun control


Is the murder method important?

Because the USA is in 92nd place worldwide in total murder rates.

91 nations MURDER at a rate higher than us.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Chicago is ranked 18th per capita.  They are a GREAT example


Of what? Street violence?

----------


## Tennyson

Chicago is not ranked eighteenth in the country in firearm related homicides.

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Spare us your bullshit.  We already know you were banned from another site for personal attacks.
> 
> 
> View Profile: Vegas giants - Political Forum


Doh! Burn!

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Chicago is not ranked eighteenth in the country in firearm related homicides.


Please tell us what they are ranked.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Chicago is not ranked eighteenth in the country in firearm related homicides.


Please tell us what they are ranked.

Nevermind #1 or #2 here's some Chicago stats: 2016 Stats | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass!

----------


## Tennyson

> Please tell us what they are ranked.


Chicago just finished off a year of unprecedented murders for 2016. No one knows how the numbers will end up, which makes the 2015 numbers irrelevant considering the 2016 numbers.

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I betcha his personal attacks are the bestest around!!


Wrong! Mine are the bestest!  :Tongue20:

----------


## MrogersNhood

Vegas Giants is a Lamo poster who posts in the genre of ivwshane and Andrew Jackson.

No quality found.  :F Sorry:

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Vegas Giants is a Lamo poster who posts in the genre of ivwshane and Andrew Jackson.
> 
> No quality found.


Remember avoid the argument....always attack the person

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Chicago just finished off a year of unprecedented murders for 2016. No one knows how the numbers will end up, which makes the 2015 numbers irrelevant considering the 2016 numbers.


Let me know when you can present the per capita data

----------


## MrogersNhood

> You can be assaultted at anytime. You can be carjacked at anytime. You can be mugged at anytime. You home can be invaded at anytime. You can call 911 for any problem, they can come at anytime, but always too late. So what is your answer to these truths?


Gun banning. That's because:derp!

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Remember avoid the argument....always attack the person


Stay classy!

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Stay classy!


You too buddy!

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Let me know when you can present the per capita data


Americaâs Mass-Shooting Capital Is Chicago - The Daily Beast There you go,guy.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Americaâ€™s Mass-Shooting Capital Is Chicago - The Daily Beast There you go,guy.


Now you are doing it by neighborhood?  Why not by house?  LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

Now, if we want to get REALLY in depth with the numbers, we can even compare the murder rates of Chicago with that of much smaller cities. Get ready to shit a brick, because according to real-life figures, you’re more likely to get killed in ALL of the following cities than you would be in Chicago: Jackson, Mississippi, Dayton, Ohio, Birmingham, Alabama, Richmond, Virginia, Wilmington, Delaware, Fort Myers, Florida, Gulfport, Mississippi, Albany, Georgia, York, Pennsylvania, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Rocky Mount, North Carolina.

http://internetisinamerica.blogspot....-violence.html

----------


## Tennyson

Fabricating population and firearm homicide rates is not much of an argument.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Fabricating population and firearm homicide rates is not much of an argument.


Whenever you get some evidence just let me know

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Now you are doing it by neighborhood?  Why not by house?  LOL


 :Geez:

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> Now, if we want to get REALLY in depth with the numbers, we can even compare the murder rates of Chicago with that of much smaller cities. Get ready to shit a brick, because according to real-life figures, you’re more likely to get killed in ALL of the following cities than you would be in Chicago: Jackson, Mississippi, Dayton, Ohio, Birmingham, Alabama, Richmond, Virginia, Wilmington, Delaware, Fort Myers, Florida, Gulfport, Mississippi, Albany, Georgia, York, Pennsylvania, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
> 
> http://internetisinamerica.blogspot....-violence.html


Lol! A satirical blog for evidence? 
The Onion is da bomb!

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Lol! A satirical blog for evidence? 
> The Onion is da bomb!


Yeah I like it too

----------


## NORAD

> Post anything  and I will respond



Sure you'll respond.

But you don't ANSWER.   :Yawn:

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Sure you'll respond.
> 
> But you don't ANSWER.


Thanks for your opinion!

----------


## NORAD

> I asked vegas giants to respond to my posts #72 and #100, but he refuses to even read them.
> 
> He has lost the debate by abdicating even a pretense of engaging in one.
> 
> This guy is not intellectually honest and is a liberal.
> 
> Am I repeating myself? I am?
> 
> Am I repeating myself? I am?



Yes, yes, yes, yes..................

----------


## NORAD

> I am here and ready for honest debate whenever anyone is finished with the personal attacks.  LOL



 :Pointlaugh:

----------


## NORAD

> Thanks for your opinion!


No Jack, them's the facts.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> 


Anytime you are ready.....LOL

----------


## Dan40

> Sure you'll respond.
> 
> But you don't ANSWER.


Liberals believe lies, deflections, and excuses are answers.

It works fine when a liberal is lying to another lying liberal.

"they" don't understand actual debate or communication.

----------


## NORAD

> Anytime you are ready.....LOL


I was ready a few hundred posts back.  You didn't provide. Fail.

----------

Midgardian (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I was ready a few hundred posts back.  You didn't provide. Fail.


Ok.  I'm waiting.  Anytime you want to debate let me know.   LOL

----------


## Midgardian

> Ok.  I'm waiting.  Anytime you want to debate let me know.   LOL


When do you want to debate the issue? 

Post #72 and post #100 are still awaiting your perusal.

One of these days you will slip up and respond to a post that is more than a day old.

You may have done so already - which would make you a hypocrite as well as a liar.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> When do you want to debate the issue? 
> 
> Post #72 and post #100 are still awaiting your perusal.
> 
> One of these days you will slip up and respond to a post that is more than a day old.


Hey....have a great night!

----------


## Dan40

> Ok.  I'm waiting.  Anytime you want to debate let me know.   LOL


LOL, in your case it means Loser On Line.  Or Liar On Line.  Or Loony On Line, Or Lonely On Line.

Certainly does not have anything to do with laughter.

Try Off Line Forever.

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

> Hey....have a great night!


Now What?

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> LOL, in your case it means Loser On Line.  Or Liar On Line.  Or Loony On Line, Or Lonely On Line.
> 
> Certainly does not have anything to do with laughter.
> 
> Try Off Line Forever.


Remember....keep it personal.  LOL

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Remember....keep it personal.  LOL


What if I told you I equated you to a douche? And in doing so I'm sullying the reputation of douches everywhere?

 :Middle Finger:

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> What if I told you I equated you to a douche? And in doing so I'm sullying the reputation of douches everywhere?


Awwwww.  I thought we were friends.  Lol

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Awwwww.  I thought we were friends.  Lol


Now you know better than that. I like guns.  :Tongue20:

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Now you know better than that. I like guns.


When did I say I didn't like guns?  LOL

----------


## MedicineBow

I'm sure the founding fathers of our nation had murder rates in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.




> Now, if we want to get REALLY in depth with the numbers, we can even compare the murder rates of Chicago with that of much smaller cities. Get ready to shit a brick, because according to real-life figures, youre more likely to get killed in ALL of the following cities than you would be in Chicago: Jackson, Mississippi, Dayton, Ohio, Birmingham, Alabama, Richmond, Virginia, Wilmington, Delaware, Fort Myers, Florida, Gulfport, Mississippi, Albany, Georgia, York, Pennsylvania, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
> 
> http://internetisinamerica.blogspot....-violence.html

----------


## MrogersNhood

> When do you want to debate the issue? 
> 
> Post #72 and post #100 are still awaiting your perusal.
> 
> One of these days you will slip up and respond to a post that is more than a day old.
> 
> You may have done so already - which would make you a hypocrite as well as a liar.


This guy has no debate, he keeps it fast and light and annoying. I've probly seen 2k posts from this douche.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I'm sure the founding fathers of our nation had murder rates in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.


Thankfully the founding fathers are not in charge anymore.  If you are native American they didn't even think you were a person.

----------


## MedicineBow

Whether you like them or not has absolutely nothing to do with the literal intent of the 2nd amendment.




> When did I say I didn't like guns?  LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> This guy has no debate, he keeps it fast and light and annoying. I've probly seen 2k posts from this douche.


Anytime you want to debate just bring it.  Oh....and this isn't it.   LOL

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Whether you like them or not has absolutely nothing to do with the literal intent of the 2nd amendment.


There...see....we agree

----------


## Midgardian

> When did I say I didn't like guns?  LOL


We don't mean anything in between your legs.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> We don't mean anything in between your legs.


I remember that well

This is my weapon
This is my gun
This is for fighting
This is for fun.

----------


## MrogersNhood

> Anytime you want to debate just bring it.  Oh....and this isn't it.   LOL


Not a problem, what is it you care to debate?

Is it whether all Americans should or should not be armed to the teeth? I could go for that.

Be forewarned: My argument is that they should.

----------


## MedicineBow

So now would suggest that rights are dependent upon who's in charge. That's why we don't have a king or queen.

 They have a method for changing the constitution. If you believe infringing upon the 2nd is proper, then by all means work towards that goal.

 It's pretty plain and simple....even if you and others disagree.




> Thankfully the founding fathers are not in charge anymore.  If you are native American they didn't even think you were a person.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> So now would suggest that rights are dependent upon who's in charge. That's why we don't have a king or queen.
> 
>  They have a method for changing the constitution. If you believe infringing upon the 2nd is proper, then by all means work towards that goal.
> 
>  It's pretty plain and simple....even if you and others disagree.


I don't want to change the constitution.  I want gun control.  Very different

----------


## Midgardian

> Not a problem, what is it you care to debate?
> 
> Is it whether all Americans should or should not be armed to the teeth? I could go for that.
> 
> Be forewarned: My argument is that they should.


That is my argument in a nutshell in post #72, but our meadowland tall person (vegas is Spanish for meadows) won't even look at what I wrote.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Not a problem, what is it you care to debate?
> 
> Is it whether all Americans should or should not be armed to the teeth? I could go for that.
> 
> Be forewarned: My argument is that they should.


Then make your argument

----------


## Midgardian

> I don't want to change the constitution.  I want gun control.  Very different


Controlling guns is not difficult. 

First you grip the firearm.

Second, you decide upon what you wish to aim.

Third, you aim.

Last, you don't fire unless you are certain you want to and know at what you are firing,

----------

MrogersNhood (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Controlling guns is not difficult. 
> First you8 grip the firearm.
> 
> Second, you decide upon what you wish to aim.
> 
> Third, you aim.
> 
> Last, you don't fire unless you are certain you want to and know at what you are firing,


Thank you

----------


## MedicineBow

My belief, going back to you original question, is that any laws are an infringement. It's plain English as written. Had they meant otherwise, the phrasing would have been different. Perhaps, even these community standards you suggested.

 I believe they were smart enough to know that people, such as yourself, would attempt to limit what was written. They were smart enough to know there would be people wanting to modify basic rights. Specifically, those seeking to usurp control.

That's why I say, if you don't like it work to change it. Otherwise, it isn't difficult to see most gun laws as invalid since they do infringe in some manner.

 Gun control is an infringement....whether you say so or not.




> I don't want to change the constitution.  I want gun control.  Very different

----------

Midgardian (01-05-2017)

----------


## MrogersNhood

> I don't want to change the constitution. * I want gun control.*  Very different


^This is the core of this person.
My gun control is hitting my target.

I can do that quite effectively.

----------

MedicineBow (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> My belief, going back to you original question, is that any laws are an infringement. It's plain English as written. Had they meant otherwise, the phrasing would have been different. Perhaps, even these community standards you suggested.
> 
>  I believe they were smart enough to know that people, such as yourself, would attempt to limit what was written. They were smart enough to know there would be people wanting to modify basic rights. Specifically, those seeking to usurp control.
> 
> That's why I say, if you don't like it work to change it. Otherwise, it isn't difficult to see most gun laws as invalid since they do infringe in some manner.
> 
>  Gun control is an infringement....whether you say so or not.


At least that is an argument......and well stated  So a followup question if I may.  If you believe in no gun restrictions then can you carry any arms onto a plane (a business may not deny you this right), into a courthouse or military installation.  Can felons carry guns?  Are their any arms that are forbidden?  How about everyone armed at the superbowl or other events?  How about when the president is speaking in public...ok to be armed?  I ask these questions sincerely....not to poke a fight

----------


## MedicineBow

> At least that is an argument......and well stated  So a followup question if I may.  If you believe in no gun restrictions then can you carry any arms onto a plane (a business may not deny you this right), into a courthouse or military installation.  Can felons carry guns?  Are their any arms that are forbidden?  How about everyone armed at the superbowl or other events?  How about when the president is speaking in public...ok to be armed?  I ask these questions sincerely....not to poke a fight


 It's getting late, for me anyway, so I'll try to address your questions.

I believe a person should be able to carry wherever they have a right to be. I have a right to be in public businesses so no, they should not be able to restrict the carrying of arms for protection. I fully support private property owners (those not open for public business) to be able to restrict firearms on their property. My right to keep and bear should exist anywhere I have a right to be. Unless one is on trial, they should be allowed to carry. They are public courthouses. Not everyone is allowed on military installations, but for those allowed, they should be able to carry. Unarmed, armed forces??? Hmmm.

 Felons. If they've paid their debt to society, then yes. Public events.....yes.

 Near the President...absolutely. Proximity to an "important" person is no reason to remove a right.

 I believe the founders would have stated this amendment differently if they believed certain restrictions were "reasonable". But, that isn't the case. Hence, my statement that the 2nd would need changing to enact any laws. 

 Forbidden arms....OK, there is a limit to what one can bear. I don't think we're going to see too many rolling around cannons. As it's written, the 2nd doesn't exclude any arms. If they meant to exclude certain things, they likely would have written it for all to read. Again, if enough people believe some restrictions are reasonable, there's a mechanism to enact restrictions.
 I will state, the incarcerated (for obvious reasons) and children (the age is debatable) should not be carrying arms.  I do know the 2nd doesn't have an age limit as written.

 Have a good night.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> It's getting late, for me anyway, so I'll try to address your questions.
> 
> I believe a person should be able to carry wherever they have a right to be. I have a right to be in public businesses so no, they should not be able to restrict the carrying of arms for protection. I fully support private property owners (those not open for public business) to be able to restrict firearms on their property. My right to keep and bear should exist anywhere I have a right to be. Unless one is on trial, they should be allowed to carry. They are public courthouses. Not everyone is allowed on military installations, but for those allowed, they should be able to carry. Unarmed, armed forces??? Hmmm.
> 
>  Felons. If they've paid their debt to society, then yes. Public events.....yes.
> 
>  Near the President...absolutely. Proximity to an "important" person is no reason to remove a right.
> 
>  I believe the founders would have stated this amendment differently if they believed certain restrictions were "reasonable". But, that isn't the case. Hence, my statement that the 2nd would need changing to enact any laws. 
> ...


You are completely consistent.  I may disagree but I do not argue with your logic based on your point of view.  Well done sir.

----------


## texmaster

> You are completely consistent.  I may disagree but I do not argue with your logic based on your point of view.  Well done sir.


No one cares about your empty compliments.   I've read your posts on that other site.  The last thing you are is civil.

I just hope whatever ban you got over there isn't permanent.

And I wouldn't suggest you trying to pull the poor me bullshit about being gay over here.   The victim card doesn't play.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> No one cares about your empty compliments.   I've read your posts on that other site.  The last thing you are is civil.
> 
> I just hope whatever ban you got over there isn't permanent.
> 
> And I wouldn't suggest you trying to pull the poor me bullshit about being gay over here.   The victim card doesn't play.


I sure wasn't complimenting you.  LOL  YOU GOT NOTHING!  LOL

----------


## Canadianeye

> No one cares about your empty compliments.   I've read your posts on that other site.  The last thing you are is civil.
> 
> I just hope whatever ban you got over there isn't permanent.
> 
> And I wouldn't suggest you trying to pull the poor me bullshit about being gay over here.   The victim card doesn't play.


He doesn't seem all that happy.

Oh...that gay.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (01-05-2017),Tennyson (01-05-2017),texmaster (01-05-2017)

----------


## texmaster

> I sure wasn't complimenting you.  LOL  YOU GOT NOTHING!  LOL


Open up a gay thread and try to claim your freakish nature is natural and I'll bury you in facts.

----------

Tennyson (01-05-2017)

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> Open up a gay thread and try to claim your freakish nature is natural and I'll bury you in facts.


Man you are fixated on gay.  You need to quit coming on to me....I don't swing that way Tex.  Lol

----------


## texmaster

> Man you are fixated on gay.  You need to quit coming on to me....I don't swing that way Tex.  Lol


I already know you do.   You aren't fooling anyone.

----------


## NowWhat,Troll?

> I already know you do.   You aren't fooling anyone.


Look dude.  Its ok if you are gay.  Just be yourself.  No need for this self hate

----------

