One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Self Defense Against an I***t
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
Jan 13, 2020 23:55:05   #
dongreen76
 
Hug wrote:
dongreen76, I do see your point, although I do not entirely agree. I don't think the number of guns should be limited,but I have mixed emotions about what type. I personally don't have any need for fully automatic weapons. My neighbor has a .50 caliber military rifle he plays with. I guess if it makes him happy, who am I to say he shouldn't have it.


As far as I know the number of guns you can own is not limited,However,the size and type of weapon you can own evidently is....I've known people that have been sent to jail for the purchase and ownership of surface to air missles.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:06:18   #
American Vet
 
dongreen76 wrote:
If you had an understanding of the second Amendment you would know that it was not talking exclusively about individual rights to carry guns,It was referring to the country (We the People)as a whole.If you had been properly educated you would know the proper way to read,and that is to decern what the writer means (when in doubt about a word,or what he is trying to pervay)you are supposed to consider the surrounding words and the context of the conversational/dialogue in which they speak of-and what were the founders doing and discussing ? that's right,the forming of the laws and rules in which we would be governed. "We",meaning the country,not individuals.So - when discussing the right to bear(wrong word,it should have been BARE) they were discussing the collective armament of the country,the right to bare a m*****a,from the word military,meaning an ARMY.So that WE THE PEOPLE,THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (an entity being born,could defend it self.)
Where you got the word or phrase equalizer, came about when Samuel Colt innovated the Colt forty five,he called it the equalizer ,whether you know it or not.
If you had an understanding of the second Amendmen... (show quote)


Your 'understanding' of the Second Amendment is deeply flawed. Additionally, your version has been rebuked by the SCOTUS.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:08:47   #
American Vet
 
useful mattoid 45 wrote:
I appreciate you breaking in to this argument dongreen

Why have assault rifles in neighborhoods? It's preposterous, yet that's our country


Exactly what is an "assault rifle"?



Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2020 05:11:45   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
dongreen76 wrote:
As far as I know the number of guns you can own is not limited,However,the size and type of weapon you can own evidently is....I've known people that have been sent to jail for the purchase and ownership of surface to air missles.


I have no desire to own a fully automatic weapons, although I would be interested in firing one one time. I do own military weapons. More specifically a Mosin-Naggant rifle.
By the way, when the second amendment was written the definition of m*****a was not a standing army. The m*****a meant men between the ages of 21 and 50 (there were some variations of the ages in the states). In times of trouble, the governor would call for a m*****a to form and the m*****a men would gather to serve their state, bringing their own personal weapons.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:13:26   #
American Vet
 
Kickaha wrote:
I have no desire to own a fully automatic weapons, although I would be interested in firing one one time. I do own military weapons. More specifically a Mosin-Naggant rifle.
By the way, when the second amendment was written the definition of m*****a was not a standing army. The m*****a meant men between the ages of 21 and 50 (there were some variations of the ages in the states). In times of trouble, the governor would call for a m*****a to form and the m*****a men would gather to serve their state, bringing their own personal weapons.
I have no desire to own a fully automatic weapons,... (show quote)


And those 'personal weapons' were on a par of those being used by the military....

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:28:21   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
American Vet wrote:
And those 'personal weapons' were on a par of those being used by the military....


Also, multiround rifles were available at the time of the American Revolution. It wasn't just single shot muskets and rifles in use at the time.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 06:48:44   #
Kcarson51
 
I would never shoot someone for that. But if someone broke into my house and i had a gun i would shoot him

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2020 06:52:27   #
American Vet
 
Kcarson51 wrote:
I would never shoot someone for that. But if someone broke into my house and i had a gun i would shoot him


You would never shoot someone for what?

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 12:18:49   #
dongreen76
 
American Vet wrote:
Your 'understanding' of the Second Amendment is deeply flawed. Additionally, your version has been rebuked by the SCOTUS.

Like every thing else in this dumbed down America so goes the SCOTUS.
Those Supremacies of a Latter day,might render any type of right-wing partisan ass ruling.I can't recall exactly what it was,nor what it was about,but I do remember who gave a ruling so consistently conservativly biased,and rudimentary in the explanation for ruling as such ,you would've thought it was written and handed down by supreme court justice Donald John Trump;it was` Scaly`before he died.
You are right about one thing,my version was rebuked by the current supreme Court,I remember when they did it.They contended that the second amendment was talking about the individuals right to bare arms.No where did the Constitution refer to an individuals right to bare arms nor did it speak at anytime of a singularity as opposed to the plurality. It was Scalia whom handed down the ruling.
This is when it occurred to me as a American citizen of the USA.That in order to remain a Democratic free society, the Supreme Court must be revamped.The problem is we live in a free competitive society and just like the ordinary Joe in are society, Supreme Court Justices have ambition and are flawed human beings. Just as clergy are Chastisized and cannot totally adhere to their chastity neither can Justices be pure un biased in their interpertations of the constitution as it is written,therefore the tendacys to be faulty in their rulings would be based upon not bi-,partisanship but on their ambition,as opposed to the conviction of morality, and that morality would be to rule according to the principles and values that the constitution conveys,not rule to appease the top one percent that has the money.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 12:24:51   #
federally indicted mattoid
 
American Vet wrote:
Exactly what is an "assault rifle"?


Ok, one that can shoot bullets repeatedly.

Who needs that?

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 12:29:50   #
American Vet
 
dongreen76 wrote:
Like every thing else in this dumbed down America so goes the SCOTUS.
Those Supremacies of a Latter day,might render any type of right-wing partisan ass ruling.I can't recall exactly what it was,nor what it was about,but I do remember who gave a ruling so consistently conservativly biased,and rudimentary in the explanation for ruling as such ,you would've thought it was written and handed down by supreme court justice Donald John Trump;it was` Scaly`before he died.
You are right about one thing,my version was rebuked by the current supreme Court,I remember when they did it.They contended that the second amendment was talking about the individuals right to bare arms.No where did the Constitution refer to an individuals right to bare arms nor did it speak at anytime of a singularity as opposed to the plurality. It was Scalia whom handed down the ruling.
This is when it occurred to me as a American citizen of the USA.That in order to remain a Democratic free society, the Supreme Court must be revamped.The problem is we live in a free competitive society and just like the ordinary Joe in are society, Supreme Court Justices have ambition and are flawed human beings. Just as clergy are Chastisized and cannot totally adhere to their chastity neither can Justices be pure un biased in their interpertations of the constitution as it is written,therefore the tendacys to be faulty in their rulings would be based upon not bi-,partisanship but on their ambition,as opposed to the conviction of morality, and that morality would be to rule according to the principles and values that the constitution conveys,not rule to appease the top one percent that has the money.
Like every thing else in this dumbed down America ... (show quote)


In the BoR, there are several references to "people". (Amendments 1, 2, 4, and 10)

Who do you think this applies to? A single individualizing? Or a plurality of "people"?

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2020 12:35:18   #
Hug
 
dongreen76 wrote:
Like every thing else in this dumbed down America so goes the SCOTUS.
Those Supremacies of a Latter day,might render any type of right-wing partisan ass ruling.I can't recall exactly what it was,nor what it was about,but I do remember who gave a ruling so consistently conservativly biased,and rudimentary in the explanation for ruling as such ,you would've thought it was written and handed down by supreme court justice Donald John Trump;it was` Scaly`before he died.
You are right about one thing,my version was rebuked by the current supreme Court,I remember when they did it.They contended that the second amendment was talking about the individuals right to bare arms.No where did the Constitution refer to an individuals right to bare arms nor did it speak at anytime of a singularity as opposed to the plurality. It was Scalia whom handed down the ruling.
This is when it occurred to me as a American citizen of the USA.That in order to remain a Democratic free society, the Supreme Court must be revamped.The problem is we live in a free competitive society and just like the ordinary Joe in are society, Supreme Court Justices have ambition and are flawed human beings. Just as clergy are Chastisized and cannot totally adhere to their chastity neither can Justices be pure un biased in their interpertations of the constitution as it is written,therefore the tendacys to be faulty in their rulings would be based upon not bi-,partisanship but on their ambition,as opposed to the conviction of morality, and that morality would be to rule according to the principles and values that the constitution conveys,not rule to appease the top one percent that has the money.
Like every thing else in this dumbed down America ... (show quote)

Sorry dongreen76, the 2nd Amendment does give the individual the right to keep and bare arms.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 12:47:23   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
dongreen76 wrote:
Like every thing else in this dumbed down America so goes the SCOTUS.
Those Supremacies of a Latter day,might render any type of right-wing partisan ass ruling.I can't recall exactly what it was,nor what it was about,but I do remember who gave a ruling so consistently conservativly biased,and rudimentary in the explanation for ruling as such ,you would've thought it was written and handed down by supreme court justice Donald John Trump;it was` Scaly`before he died.
You are right about one thing,my version was rebuked by the current supreme Court,I remember when they did it.They contended that the second amendment was talking about the individuals right to bare arms.No where did the Constitution refer to an individuals right to bare arms nor did it speak at anytime of a singularity as opposed to the plurality. It was Scalia whom handed down the ruling.
This is when it occurred to me as a American citizen of the USA.That in order to remain a Democratic free society, the Supreme Court must be revamped.The problem is we live in a free competitive society and just like the ordinary Joe in are society, Supreme Court Justices have ambition and are flawed human beings. Just as clergy are Chastisized and cannot totally adhere to their chastity neither can Justices be pure un biased in their interpertations of the constitution as it is written,therefore the tendacys to be faulty in their rulings would be based upon not bi-,partisanship but on their ambition,as opposed to the conviction of morality, and that morality would be to rule according to the principles and values that the constitution conveys,not rule to appease the top one percent that has the money.
Like every thing else in this dumbed down America ... (show quote)

By US code the m*****a consists of all able bodied men over the age of 17 and under the age of 45, with some exceptions. Under the Constitution, the m*****a could be called by the states in time of emergency. The m*****a is not part of the military. Also, the m*****a men were required to bring their own weapons. M*****as are currently legal under US law with 23 states and territories currently having active m*****a forces. Private m*****as are legal in every state (except Wyoming) with a prohibition to parading or exercising of armed m*****as in public.

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 13:01:53   #
dongreen76
 
American Vet wrote:
You would never shoot someone for what?


I wouldn't shoot someone "FOR WHAT"neither,however I would shoot someone that broke into my house.
I change that.The way people act nowadays,it is understandable why some one would shoot some one "FOR WHAT".

Reply
Jan 14, 2020 13:04:11   #
American Vet
 
Kickaha wrote:
By US code the m*****a consists of all able bodied men over the age of 17 and under the age of 45, with some exceptions. Under the Constitution, the m*****a could be called by the states in time of emergency. The m*****a is not part of the military. Also, the m*****a men were required to bring their own weapons. M*****as are currently legal under US law with 23 states and territories currently having active m*****a forces. Private m*****as are legal in every state (except Wyoming) with a prohibition to parading or exercising of armed m*****as in public.
By US code the m*****a consists of all able bodied... (show quote)


The discussion of the m*****a is interesting - but still does not negate anything in the 2A. Look at it this way:

"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State," is making statement about the need for a m*****a.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is also making statement that is also pretty clear. There is nothing here that indicates that the right to bear arms is dependent on m*****a membership 9or eligibility).

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.