Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You didn't answer the question. Your evasion suggests you are okay with a citizen, no matter their sobriety or sanity, to own a Surface to Air Missile.
no i did answer the question. I said I stand by madisons vision of the second amendment
Wow. Has it ever occur to you that Madison could not 'see' into the future and man's ability to creat arms capable of the mass slaughter of innocent citizens? And if Madison had the facts in evidence his opinion which you opine might be different?
no i did answer the question. I said I stand by madisons vision of the second amendment
Wow. Has it ever occur to you that Madison could not 'see' into the future and man's ability to creat arms capable of the mass slaughter of innocent citizens? And if Madison had the facts in evidence his opinion which you opine might be different?
One can not own a ground to air missile without a lot of federal licenses. Your argument is a failure.
james madisons intent proves your argument is invalid.Wow. Has it ever occur to you that Madison could not 'see' into the future and man's ability to creat arms capable of the mass slaughter of innocent citizens? And if Madison had the facts in evidence his opinion which you opine might be different?
One can not own a ground to air missile without a lot of federal licenses. Your argument is a failure.
Gee, so you're stating that anyone can get a "lot of federal licenses" and own a surface to air missile, correct? Do you suppose a background check of an applicant is required to get "lot of federal licenses"?
Your post, BTW, does not make my premise invalid; in fact if what you wrote is correct, it provides a bit more evidence that the Second Amendment's right to own arms has limitations. Being licensed is an infringement, is it not?
james madisons intent proves your argument is invalid.One can not own a ground to air missile without a lot of federal licenses. Your argument is a failure.
Gee, so you're stating that anyone can get a "lot of federal licenses" and own a surface to air missile, correct? Do you suppose a background check of an applicant is required to get "lot of federal licenses"?
Your post, BTW, does not make my premise invalid; in fact if what you wrote is correct, it provides a bit more evidence that the Second Amendment's right to own arms has limitations. Being licensed is an infringement, is it not?
james madisons intent proves your argument is invalid.Gee, so you're stating that anyone can get a "lot of federal licenses" and own a surface to air missile, correct? Do you suppose a background check of an applicant is required to get "lot of federal licenses"?
Your post, BTW, does not make my premise invalid; in fact if what you wrote is correct, it provides a bit more evidence that the Second Amendment's right to own arms has limitations. Being licensed is an infringement, is it not?
R E A D S L O W L Y: A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Now that we have cleared up the obvious, laws exist which limit private ownership of automatic weapons, land mines, hand grenades and other weapons of war. We may then posit that the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct and "Arms" can be controlled by the rule of law. How? Because laws already exist which infringe on your right and my right to own specific types of Arms.
Madison's intent is irrelevant, and, I suggested that if he were alive today, and was witness to the carnage in the year 2012 alone, he would agree that some types of Arms are not suited to be owned by the general population.
But neither of us can prove what Madison might believe today, which makes your statement silly.
james madisons intent proves your argument is invalid.
R E A D S L O W L Y: A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Now that we have cleared up the obvious, laws exist which limit private ownership of automatic weapons, land mines, hand grenades and other weapons of war. We may then posit that the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct and "Arms" can be controlled by the rule of law. How? Because laws already exist which infringe on your right and my right to own specific types of Arms.
Madison's intent is irrelevant, and, I suggested that if he were alive today, and was witness to the carnage in the year 2012 alone, he would agree that some types of Arms are not suited to be owned by the general population.
But neither of us can prove what Madison might believe today, which makes your statement silly.
madisons intent isn't irrelevant. your statement is like saying well we can do away with free speach and the right to assemble, and now everybody really isn't created equally. bullshit. the laws that exist today, by the letter of the constitution are unconstitutional. just because those laws exist doesn't make them right or constitutional. you using that as your argument makes you look silly. madisons intent was very sound and timeless. his intent wasn't about guns and just owning guns. his intent was not letting the government get stronger then the people. and the way he saw to control that ws by the people being as armed as they are. because that is the only force that works. when the powere gets out of balance, which it is today, you get the mess we have today. government no longer making decision for the people, but rather for themslves and their special interests. even the supreme court is now partisan and political. and there is no tool in the arsenal to change that. government controls all the cards. because they have changed the balance of power and the people have let them. we have let them convince us they have acted in our best interest with their restrictive laws. but who do these laws effect? them? no, the give them more power. they effect us. That, is what madison and every state who ratified the 2nd amendment were trying to prevent. and why? because they were forward thinking. thye saw and lived through what had happened in the past and tried to prevent it from happening in the future
R E A D S L O W L Y: A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Now that we have cleared up the obvious, laws exist which limit private ownership of automatic weapons, land mines, hand grenades and other weapons of war. We may then posit that the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct and "Arms" can be controlled by the rule of law. How? Because laws already exist which infringe on your right and my right to own specific types of Arms.
Madison's intent is irrelevant, and, I suggested that if he were alive today, and was witness to the carnage in the year 2012 alone, he would agree that some types of Arms are not suited to be owned by the general population.
But neither of us can prove what Madison might believe today, which makes your statement silly.
madisons intent isn't irrelevant. your statement is like saying well we can do away with free speach and the right to assemble, and now everybody really isn't created equally. bullshit. the laws that exist today, by the letter of the constitution are unconstitutional. just because those laws exist doesn't make them right or constitutional. you using that as your argument makes you look silly. madisons intent was very sound and timeless. his intent wasn't about guns and just owning guns. his intent was not letting the government get stronger then the people. and the way he saw to control that ws by the people being as armed as they are. because that is the only force that works. when the powere gets out of balance, which it is today, you get the mess we have today. government no longer making decision for the people, but rather for themslves and their special interests. even the supreme court is now partisan and political. and there is no tool in the arsenal to change that. government controls all the cards. because they have changed the balance of power and the people have let them. we have let them convince us they have acted in our best interest with their restrictive laws. but who do these laws effect? them? no, the give them more power. they effect us. That, is what madison and every state who ratified the 2nd amendment were trying to prevent. and why? because they were forward thinking. thye saw and lived through what had happened in the past and tried to prevent it from happening in the future
Gee, I'm convinced (sarcasm alert).
madisons intent isn't irrelevant. your statement is like saying well we can do away with free speach and the right to assemble, and now everybody really isn't created equally. bullshit. the laws that exist today, by the letter of the constitution are unconstitutional. just because those laws exist doesn't make them right or constitutional. you using that as your argument makes you look silly. madisons intent was very sound and timeless. his intent wasn't about guns and just owning guns. his intent was not letting the government get stronger then the people. and the way he saw to control that ws by the people being as armed as they are. because that is the only force that works. when the powere gets out of balance, which it is today, you get the mess we have today. government no longer making decision for the people, but rather for themslves and their special interests. even the supreme court is now partisan and political. and there is no tool in the arsenal to change that. government controls all the cards. because they have changed the balance of power and the people have let them. we have let them convince us they have acted in our best interest with their restrictive laws. but who do these laws effect? them? no, the give them more power. they effect us. That, is what madison and every state who ratified the 2nd amendment were trying to prevent. and why? because they were forward thinking. thye saw and lived through what had happened in the past and tried to prevent it from happening in the future
Gee, I'm convinced (sarcasm alert).
no, you love the inbalance of power. you are happy to be neutered. its a liberal mentality. I don't want responsibility, take care of me. i'll just complain the rich are getting richer. I'll complain my healthcare sucks. I'l complain my SS is being eroded away.
Wow. Has it ever occur to you that Madison could not 'see' into the future and man's ability to creat arms capable of the mass slaughter of innocent citizens? And if Madison had the facts in evidence his opinion which you opine might be different?
One can not own a ground to air missile without a lot of federal licenses. Your argument is a failure.
Gee, so you're stating that anyone can get a "lot of federal licenses" and own a surface to air missile, correct? Do you suppose a background check of an applicant is required to get "lot of federal licenses"?
Your post, BTW, does not make my premise invalid; in fact if what you wrote is correct, it provides a bit more evidence that the Second Amendment's right to own arms has limitations. Being licensed is an infringement, is it not?
james madisons intent proves your argument is invalid.Gee, so you're stating that anyone can get a "lot of federal licenses" and own a surface to air missile, correct? Do you suppose a background check of an applicant is required to get "lot of federal licenses"?
Your post, BTW, does not make my premise invalid; in fact if what you wrote is correct, it provides a bit more evidence that the Second Amendment's right to own arms has limitations. Being licensed is an infringement, is it not?
R E A D S L O W L Y: A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Now that we have cleared up the obvious, laws exist which limit private ownership of automatic weapons, land mines, hand grenades and other weapons of war. We may then posit that the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct and "Arms" can be controlled by the rule of law. How? Because laws already exist which infringe on your right and my right to own specific types of Arms.
Madison's intent is irrelevant, and, I suggested that if he were alive today, and was witness to the carnage in the year 2012 alone, he would agree that some types of Arms are not suited to be owned by the general population.
But neither of us can prove what Madison might believe today, which makes your statement silly.
james madisons intent proves your argument is invalid.
R E A D S L O W L Y: A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Now that we have cleared up the obvious, laws exist which limit private ownership of automatic weapons, land mines, hand grenades and other weapons of war. We may then posit that the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct and "Arms" can be controlled by the rule of law. How? Because laws already exist which infringe on your right and my right to own specific types of Arms.
Madison's intent is irrelevant, and, I suggested that if he were alive today, and was witness to the carnage in the year 2012 alone, he would agree that some types of Arms are not suited to be owned by the general population.
But neither of us can prove what Madison might believe today, which makes your statement silly.
Your argument fails because the SUPREME COURT HAS RULED numerous times what IS covered. Firearms, rifles, shotguns and pistols that are not fully automatic and are in use or of use to the Military.
You can rant all you want about Machine Guns, grenades and other Military arms. They are not covered by the 2nd.
R E A D S L O W L Y: A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. A QUESTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Now that we have cleared up the obvious, laws exist which limit private ownership of automatic weapons, land mines, hand grenades and other weapons of war. We may then posit that the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct and "Arms" can be controlled by the rule of law. How? Because laws already exist which infringe on your right and my right to own specific types of Arms.
Madison's intent is irrelevant, and, I suggested that if he were alive today, and was witness to the carnage in the year 2012 alone, he would agree that some types of Arms are not suited to be owned by the general population.
But neither of us can prove what Madison might believe today, which makes your statement silly.
Your argument fails because the SUPREME COURT HAS RULED numerous times what IS covered. Firearms, rifles, shotguns and pistols that are not fully automatic and are in use or of use to the Military.
You can rant all you want about Machine Guns, grenades and other Military arms. They are not covered by the 2nd.
Before you call anyone a moron, you might want to do some research (BTW, you're the one generally referred to as the "retarded" GySgt,). Read what I posted and why; you'll find out - if you're not retarded - the point I was making is consistent with what you posted above.
Your argument fails because the SUPREME COURT HAS RULED numerous times what IS covered. Firearms, rifles, shotguns and pistols that are not fully automatic and are in use or of use to the Military.
You can rant all you want about Machine Guns, grenades and other Military arms. They are not covered by the 2nd.
Before you call anyone a moron, you might want to do some research (BTW, you're the one generally referred to as the "retarded" GySgt,). Read what I posted and why; you'll find out - if you're not retarded - the point I was making is consistent with what you posted above.
No you are claiming because certain weapons and devices are not covered that means the weapons covered can be more heavily regulated banned or require odious infringements on peoples rights to possess them. NO I DIDN'T, THAT IS YOUR CONSTRUCT (STRAW MAN)
They can not be. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, knives are all covered by the 2nd Amendment. And it states the right can not be INFRINGED. Odious requirements for registration are infringement. Banning covered weapons is INFRINGEMENT. Trying to ban or curtail access to 30 and 15 round magazines is an INFRINGEMENT.
Before you call anyone a moron, you might want to do some research (BTW, you're the one generally referred to as the "retarded" GySgt,). Read what I posted and why; you'll find out - if you're not retarded - the point I was making is consistent with what you posted above.
No you are claiming because certain weapons and devices are not covered that means the weapons covered can be more heavily regulated banned or require odious infringements on peoples rights to possess them. NO I DIDN'T, THAT IS YOUR CONSTRUCT (STRAW MAN)
They can not be. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, knives are all covered by the 2nd Amendment. And it states the right can not be INFRINGED. Odious requirements for registration are infringement. Banning covered weapons is INFRINGEMENT. Trying to ban or curtail access to 30 and 15 round magazines is an INFRINGEMENT.
Your comments are all based on emotion; you have no idea how future laws will be written, nor how the current or future Supreme Courts might rule [Likely 5-4 which suggests even well educated Justices of the Supreme Court will disagree].
now this is very interesting, espescially when you look at other current issues along side it like proposed background checks for gun purchases. We have already seen cases where individuals have been denied and even have had guns they own taken away from them because they had taken an atidepressant in the past for anxiety or depression. So now with these new classifications of mental illness can someone be denied the right to own a gun because they had PMS or tantrums as a child?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=20
DSM-5: Will millions more Americans be diagnosed with mental illness?
by Lisa Collier Cool
Health Topics »The impending publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) has kindled fiery debate about whether Americans are being vastly over-diagnosed with mental illness or if Americans are psychologically sicker than they used to be.
The new "bible" of psychiatric diagnoses, which will be released later this month, includes new disorders relating to grief, childhood temper tantrums, binge eating, PMS, and painful sex (now called genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder), among others. It has also changed how existing conditions—including oft-polarizing ADHD and autism—are diagnosed.
According to the new definitions the DSM-5 uses, some experts predict about 50 percent of U.S. citizens could be diagnosed as "mentally ill" at some point during their lifetime.
Faces of Mental Illness: Patients Share Their Stories
A Firestorm of Controversy
The DSM-5 changes were approved late last year, and since then, plenty of experts and organizations have weighed in on the pros and cons of the new guide.
now this is very interesting, espescially when you look at other current issues along side it like proposed background checks for gun purchases. We have already seen cases where individuals have been denied and even have had guns they own taken away from them because they had taken an atidepressant in the past for anxiety or depression. So now with these new classifications of mental illness can someone be denied the right to own a gun because they had PMS or tantrums as a child?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=20
DSM-5: Will millions more Americans be diagnosed with mental illness?
by Lisa Collier Cool
Health Topics »The impending publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) has kindled fiery debate about whether Americans are being vastly over-diagnosed with mental illness or if Americans are psychologically sicker than they used to be.
The new "bible" of psychiatric diagnoses, which will be released later this month, includes new disorders relating to grief, childhood temper tantrums, binge eating, PMS, and painful sex (now called genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder), among others. It has also changed how existing conditionsincluding oft-polarizing ADHD and autismare diagnosed.
According to the new definitions the DSM-5 uses, some experts predict about 50 percent of U.S. citizens could be diagnosed as "mentally ill" at some point during their lifetime.
Faces of Mental Illness: Patients Share Their Stories
A Firestorm of Controversy
The DSM-5 changes were approved late last year, and since then, plenty of experts and organizations have weighed in on the pros and cons of the new guide.
Hopefully this is true
Psychiatrists Laying Groundwork To Declare Religion As Mental Illness
The evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has lucidly pointed out that many religious beliefs would constitute signs of mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia) if these were not cloaked in the drapes of divinity. Take a supernatural belief rooted in religious doctrine, and call it divine "fact" X. If it is part of a person's religious narrative, it constitutes a belief that must be respected (and for one particular religion, one should not even criticize openly any of its belief system...no I am not referring to the Amish). However, if an individual held the same belief X, without it being part of a religious narrative, the individual holding this belief would be met with derision (if not concern for his/her mental wellbeing).
I would push Dawkins's argument further. Take a given divine "fact" X held by members of some religion. Most individuals who are not part of the religion in question will typically view the belief as outlandish. Hence, a belief that would otherwise be considered a sign of mental illness is perfectly "logical" when it applies to one's religion.
Lest some reader misinterpret my position, let me be clear: I am not suggesting that religious believers are "crazy" or that they suffer from mental illness. I am merely pointing out that the same belief is either sacred or a sign of mental illness depending on the context in which it is believed. The teaser image that I have chosen for this post makes roughly the same point. A child's belief in the Easter bunny and in Santa Claus is acceptable but one is expected to outgrow such childish beliefs. Now, an adult who believes in God (who otherwise shares an extraordinary number of the same narrative as Santa Claus) is perfectly sane. Readers interested in my critique of religion may refer to many of my earlier posts on this subject including here.
On a related note, readers might be interested in the works of three neuroscientists, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Michael Persinger, and Mario Beauregard, each of whom has studied the neuronal basis of particular aspects of religiosity.
Religious Beliefs: Divine Revelations or Mental Disorder? | Psychology Today
now this is very interesting, espescially when you look at other current issues along side it like proposed background checks for gun purchases. We have already seen cases where individuals have been denied and even have had guns they own taken away from them because they had taken an atidepressant in the past for anxiety or depression. So now with these new classifications of mental illness can someone be denied the right to own a gun because they had PMS or tantrums as a child?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=20
DSM-5: Will millions more Americans be diagnosed with mental illness?
by Lisa Collier Cool
Health Topics »The impending publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) has kindled fiery debate about whether Americans are being vastly over-diagnosed with mental illness or if Americans are psychologically sicker than they used to be.
The new "bible" of psychiatric diagnoses, which will be released later this month, includes new disorders relating to grief, childhood temper tantrums, binge eating, PMS, and painful sex (now called genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder), among others. It has also changed how existing conditionsincluding oft-polarizing ADHD and autismare diagnosed.
According to the new definitions the DSM-5 uses, some experts predict about 50 percent of U.S. citizens could be diagnosed as "mentally ill" at some point during their lifetime.
Faces of Mental Illness: Patients Share Their Stories
A Firestorm of Controversy
The DSM-5 changes were approved late last year, and since then, plenty of experts and organizations have weighed in on the pros and cons of the new guide.
Hopefully this is true
Psychiatrists Laying Groundwork To Declare Religion As Mental Illness
The evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist Richard Dawkins has lucidly pointed out that many religious beliefs would constitute signs of mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia) if these were not cloaked in the drapes of divinity. Take a supernatural belief rooted in religious doctrine, and call it divine "fact" X. If it is part of a person's religious narrative, it constitutes a belief that must be respected (and for one particular religion, one should not even criticize openly any of its belief system...no I am not referring to the Amish). However, if an individual held the same belief X, without it being part of a religious narrative, the individual holding this belief would be met with derision (if not concern for his/her mental wellbeing).
I would push Dawkins's argument further. Take a given divine "fact" X held by members of some religion. Most individuals who are not part of the religion in question will typically view the belief as outlandish. Hence, a belief that would otherwise be considered a sign of mental illness is perfectly "logical" when it applies to one's religion.
Lest some reader misinterpret my position, let me be clear: I am not suggesting that religious believers are "crazy" or that they suffer from mental illness. I am merely pointing out that the same belief is either sacred or a sign of mental illness depending on the context in which it is believed. The teaser image that I have chosen for this post makes roughly the same point. A child's belief in the Easter bunny and in Santa Claus is acceptable but one is expected to outgrow such childish beliefs. Now, an adult who believes in God (who otherwise shares an extraordinary number of the same narrative as Santa Claus) is perfectly sane. Readers interested in my critique of religion may refer to many of my earlier posts on this subject including here.
On a related note, readers might be interested in the works of three neuroscientists, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Michael Persinger, and Mario Beauregard, each of whom has studied the neuronal basis of particular aspects of religiosity.
Religious Beliefs: Divine Revelations or Mental Disorder? | Psychology Today
in a world where liberals are allowed to exist I totally believe its true. but what will happen is the same thing that is happening now with guns. the religious will galvanize, join together and place a united front against them . it will create a drastic shift to the right
