'Fuck You, Guns'

[freedombecki]

Your criticism of a group defending the 2nd amendment is backed by the same logic of somebody saying Whites should be allowed to inslave all African Americans again, on a constitutional basis of thinking not a moral basis of thinking. We're expressly guaranteed the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, just like how we're no longer allowed to inslave people based on the 13th amendment. The constitution is a universal living document that is to be used fully, not to be taken out of context and scrutinized clause by clause. If you use one part of it, you must use all of it. Any person disagreeing with me is in no way different than somebody who uses specific verses from the Bible to support their agenda, yet disregards the rest of it. I have the posthumous logic and principals of 40 of the most highly regarded and intelligent free-thinkers of modern history backing my position.

First, the word is "Enslave", not "inslave". I usually don't make a big deal about typos, but this wasn't a typo.

Second, the notion that the second amendment was about individual gun ownership is a recent invention. For most of history, it was understood to mean the right of states to have militias, not the right of individuals to own guns, which were for the most part rarely owned by private citizens until recently.

When industrialization made weapons like the Thompson Sub-machine gun available, the government moved to ban such weapons. (US v. Miller). Even Heller, which embraces the crackpot NRA position, still had to do some mighty fine parsing to make sure that people weren't out there buying their own mortars and recoiless rockets.

JoeB131, do you always reinvent history just in order to win a talking point in a debate?

If you're trying to say the militiamen of George Washington's day who brought THEIR OWN guns to fight with couldn't continue to own them after the American Revolution, couldn't go hunting, couldn't fend off gunslingers who rode up to their cabin or ranchhouse to steal horses and tools, you have another think coming. Private ownership of guns was a necessity on the wild frontier as well as in shady places in the streets of colonial cities which were a melting pot of people with deeply-held political and religious views and new ideas, which often were rejected so unpleasantly there were often duels. Alexander Hamilton lost his life in one of them:

​

Slave ships were run by well-armed shipmates.
​

You must have been reading faerie tales instead of watching tv westers when you were growing up.
​

Remember Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett?

Davy Crockett died at the Alamo with his gun blazing. He also traveled cross country through hostile territories in some parts, and places where wildcats or a bear could slash you to death if you were unarmed or only had a club.

Women on the frontier were taught how to use a gun in case hostiles arrived while the man of the house was hunting game meat or had a business meeting or was raising a barn for neighbors.
​

You can reorder history to your pleasure all you wish, but not everyone is on board, including many Americans who are Democrats. They won't let you relieve them of their guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your criticism of a group defending the 2nd amendment is backed by the same logic of somebody saying Whites should be allowed to inslave all African Americans again, on a constitutional basis of thinking not a moral basis of thinking. We're expressly guaranteed the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, just like how we're no longer allowed to inslave people based on the 13th amendment. The constitution is a universal living document that is to be used fully, not to be taken out of context and scrutinized clause by clause. If you use one part of it, you must use all of it. Any person disagreeing with me is in no way different than somebody who uses specific verses from the Bible to support their agenda, yet disregards the rest of it. I have the posthumous logic and principals of 40 of the most highly regarded and intelligent free-thinkers of modern history backing my position.

First, the word is "Enslave", not "inslave". I usually don't make a big deal about typos, but this wasn't a typo.

Second, the notion that the second amendment was about individual gun ownership is a recent invention. For most of history, it was understood to mean the right of states to have militias, not the right of individuals to own guns, which were for the most part rarely owned by private citizens until recently.

When industrialization made weapons like the Thompson Sub-machine gun available, the government moved to ban such weapons. (US v. Miller). Even Heller, which embraces the crackpot NRA position, still had to do some mighty fine parsing to make sure that people weren't out there buying their own mortars and recoiless rockets.

What a fucking dishonest piece of shit you are
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was about saw off shot guns. No where is Thompson Sub-machine gun mentioned. Thompson's are not baned

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131, do you always reinvent history just in order to win a talking point in a debate?

If you're trying to say the militiamen of George Washington's day who brought THEIR OWN guns to fight with couldn't continue to own them after the American Revolution, couldn't go hunting, couldn't fend off gunslingers who rode up to their cabin or ranchhouse to steal horses and tools, you have another think coming. Private ownership of guns was a necessity on the wild frontier as well as in shady places in the streets of colonial cities which were a melting pot of people with deeply-held political and religious views and new ideas, which often were rejected so unpleasantly there were often duels. Alexander Hamilton lost his life in one of them:

Davy Crockett died at the Alamo with his gun blazing. He also traveled cross country through hostile territories in some parts, and places where wildcats or a bear could slash you to death if you were unarmed or only had a club.

Women on the frontier were taught how to use a gun in case hostiles arrived while the man of the house was hunting game meat or had a business meeting or was raising a barn for neighbors.

You can reorder history to your pleasure all you wish, but not everyone is on board, including many Americans who are Democrats. They won't let you relieve them of their guns.

Most Americans didn't live "on the frontier". Most live in settled areas. And they didn't own guns, for the most part.

In fact, in teh American revolution, the first thing they had to do was actually BUY guns or seize them from British Armories.

But let's get serious. Let's even concede that animals and people we've hunted into extinction (yeah, Genocide is COOL!) made it necessary for people on the frontier to own guns.

What the excuse today? I don't worry I'm going to be attacked by a bob-cat, I worry I'm going to be attacked by a homeless person that our wonderful society seems to think it okay. Just don't interfere with my Dressage Pony!

 

[JoeB131]

What a fucking dishonest piece of shit you are
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was about saw off shot guns. No where is Thompson Sub-machine gun mentioned. Thompson's are not baned

Miller upheld the power of the Government to regulate weapons' capabilities, including automatic weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a fucking dishonest piece of shit you are
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was about saw off shot guns. No where is Thompson Sub-machine gun mentioned. Thompson's are not baned

Miller upheld the power of the Government to regulate weapons' capabilities, including automatic weapons.

Miller wasn't about automatic weapons it was about shotguns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

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.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...07+U.S.+174+(1939)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,34&as_vis=1

 

[Delete752]

Ladies and gentlemen, with all the shortsighted left-wing logic out there, I'm very very scared for our future. Me joining this sight has only confirmed my pre-existing fears

 

[JoeB131]

Ladies and gentlemen, with all the shortsighted left-wing logic out there, I'm very very scared for our future. Me joining this sight has only confirmed my pre-existing fears

Again, if crazy people can get guns, guns are too easy to get.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ladies and gentlemen, with all the shortsighted left-wing logic out there, I'm very very scared for our future. Me joining this sight has only confirmed my pre-existing fears

Again, if crazy people can get guns, guns are too easy to get.

Everybody I would like to introduce you to Mr. Joe Misinformation Blowhard.
Let's all give him a hand and welcome him to the forum

 

[freedombecki]

JoeB131, do you always reinvent history just in order to win a talking point in a debate?

If you're trying to say the militiamen of George Washington's day who brought THEIR OWN guns to fight with couldn't continue to own them after the American Revolution, couldn't go hunting, couldn't fend off gunslingers who rode up to their cabin or ranchhouse to steal horses and tools, you have another think coming. Private ownership of guns was a necessity on the wild frontier as well as in shady places in the streets of colonial cities which were a melting pot of people with deeply-held political and religious views and new ideas, which often were rejected so unpleasantly there were often duels. Alexander Hamilton lost his life in one of them:

Davy Crockett died at the Alamo with his gun blazing. He also traveled cross country through hostile territories in some parts, and places where wildcats or a bear could slash you to death if you were unarmed or only had a club.

Women on the frontier were taught how to use a gun in case hostiles arrived while the man of the house was hunting game meat or had a business meeting or was raising a barn for neighbors.

You can reorder history to your pleasure all you wish, but not everyone is on board, including many Americans who are Democrats. They won't let you relieve them of their guns.

Most Americans didn't live "on the frontier". Most live in settled areas. And they didn't own guns, for the most part.

In fact, in teh American revolution, the first thing they had to do was actually BUY guns or seize them from British Armories.

But let's get serious. Let's even concede that animals and people we've hunted into extinction (yeah, Genocide is COOL!) made it necessary for people on the frontier to own guns.

What the excuse today? I don't worry I'm going to be attacked by a bob-cat, I worry I'm going to be attacked by a homeless person that our wonderful society seems to think it okay. Just don't interfere with my Dressage Pony!

Firstly, genocide is not "cool," and genocide was attempted by both sides, not just white against the red man as you are implicating.

The Indian Massacre of 1622 (Wikipedia) took place in the Colony of Virginia, in what now belongs to the United States of America, on Friday, 22 March 1622. Captain John Smith, though he had not been in Virginia since 1609 and was thus not a firsthand eyewitness, related in his History of Virginia that braves of the Powhatan Confederacy "came unarmed into our houses with deer, turkeys, fish, fruits, and other provisions to sell us". Suddenly the Powhatan grabbed any tools or weapons available to them and killed any English settlers who were in sight, including men, women and children of all ages. Chief Opechancanough led a coordinated series of surprise attacks of the Powhatan Confederacy that killed 347 people, a quarter of the English population of Jamestown.

​

Yes, civilized people in cities owned guns and still do. They even had a grenade launcher made in Holland:

Gentlemens' Guns Colonial to Revolution

​

Guns have been part of our heritage, their use is written into the Second Amendment, and all your blathering is not changing the Founders' gift to free people nor our resolve in remaining free from government oppression through our most traditional understanding of ownership of guns and citizens of the United States of America.

Credits for photographs: (1) Wikimedia (2)West Point Museum (3) Early pistol

​

 

[freedombecki]

What a fucking dishonest piece of shit you are
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was about saw off shot guns. No where is Thompson Sub-machine gun mentioned. Thompson's are not baned

Miller upheld the power of the Government to regulate weapons' capabilities, including automatic weapons.

You mean Congress' regulations?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I wonder how many gun haters would have the courage to place a 'gun free zone' bumper sticker on their car or the front door of their residence.

Thankfully I don't have to use this in my neighborhood

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What a fucking dishonest piece of shit you are
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was about saw off shot guns. No where is Thompson Sub-machine gun mentioned. Thompson's are not baned

Miller upheld the power of the Government to regulate weapons' capabilities, including automatic weapons.

You mean Congress' regulations?

Problem with Joes post is that it was misinformation on his part. Miller ruling had nothing to do with automatic firearms. It was dealing with sawed off shotguns.

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.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - Google Scholar

 

[skookerasbil]

Ban them for the whole country. A gun ban in Chicago is MEANINGLESS if you can drive over to Cicero and buy a gun there.

This guy ^^ is such a fucking phoney.


s0n......grow some balls and just state who you really are!!!! Damn I hate the phonies...........

 

[freedombecki]

Ladies and gentlemen, with all the shortsighted left-wing logic out there, I'm very very scared for our future. Me joining this sight has only confirmed my pre-existing fears

Again, if crazy people can get guns, guns are too easy to get.

It is already against the law to "allow crazy people to get guns," JoeB131.

What you should be asking is why isn't Congress enforcing the law.

Federal Law on Mental Health Reporting

• Gun control Act, 1968 - Background checks could be enforced more strictly
• NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 - allowances made for people who were cured of their illness and is found rehabilitated (before it was made permanent.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your criticism of a group defending the 2nd amendment is backed by the same logic of somebody saying Whites should be allowed to inslave all African Americans again, on a constitutional basis of thinking not a moral basis of thinking. We're expressly guaranteed the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, just like how we're no longer allowed to inslave people based on the 13th amendment. The constitution is a universal living document that is to be used fully, not to be taken out of context and scrutinized clause by clause. If you use one part of it, you must use all of it. Any person disagreeing with me is in no way different than somebody who uses specific verses from the Bible to support their agenda, yet disregards the rest of it. I have the posthumous logic and principals of 40 of the most highly regarded and intelligent free-thinkers of modern history backing my position.

First, the word is "Enslave", not "inslave". I usually don't make a big deal about typos, but this wasn't a typo.

Second, the notion that the second amendment was about individual gun ownership is a recent invention. For most of history, it was understood to mean the right of states to have militias, not the right of individuals to own guns, which were for the most part rarely owned by private citizens until recently.

When industrialization made weapons like the Thompson Sub-machine gun available, the government moved to ban such weapons. (US v. Miller). Even Heller, which embraces the crackpot NRA position, still had to do some mighty fine parsing to make sure that people weren't out there buying their own mortars and recoiless rockets.

Michael Bellesiles, is that you? LOL!

 

[skookerasbil]

Obviously, a little lesson on weapons is necessary for the hordes of lefty dopes on here who dont know shit about shit about guns...........

Which circle represents the caliber slug an AR-15 fires? Which represents a load of 00 buck from a 12G?? How many shots come out of a single discharge of a 00 buck shell with one squeeze of the trigger?? How about the AR-15??

Ummm..........the actual "bullet" is whats circled assholes........the bottom ( not circled ) is the case/primer.powder charge and is discharged from the gun.




Which gun is more deadly within 10 yards ( the distance MOST gun incidents occur at ) ????????


This one????

A

Or this one???


B

Which gun can do more damage in 3 minutes for stationary targets??


A or B ??????



If you picked A, you obviously know your firearms. If you picked B, you are a gun grabbing, limpwrister jackass who needs to bow out of these threads.



Oh.........and nobody is ever banning gun A. Ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ladies and gentlemen, with all the shortsighted left-wing logic out there, I'm very very scared for our future. Me joining this sight has only confirmed my pre-existing fears

Again, if crazy people can get guns, guns are too easy to get.

Liberals pushed for the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Good job!

 

[skookerasbil]

This is the only type of firearm that is acceptable to the k00k left like Joe B et. al................

I suggest they move out of the country. We have something here called the second ammendment and its never going away and you can take it to the bank.

 

[skookerasbil]

One of 2 12G's I own........one sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet weapon here s0ns..............

Mossberg 930 SPX............ FTMFW!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2BvJzqeLp0]Shooting The Mossberg 930 SPX 12ga Shotgun - YouTube[/ame]


At 20 paces, take your head clean off = exactly what you want when the zombies come for your shit.