The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[Toddsterpatriot]

I get that, but we will likely part ways because I also recognize that your rights (and mine) are "naturally" limited by the rights of others. Do you get that, or do you think you owe no respect to the rights of others?

How are my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion limited by the rights of others?
How is my right to keep and bear arms limited by the rights of others?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And you have not meaningfully responded to the posts that demonstrate your position to be unsound.
I have a question. Was your castration done with a knife or chemicals?

Ignoring the castration joke that I initiated, can you be just a bit more specific about what it that I supposedly ignored?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

How are my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion limited by the rights of others?
How is my right to keep and bear arms limited by the rights of others?

So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?

Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others: case in point, morning prayer in a public school. I don't want or need God and I do not want my kids subjected to God. Prayers can be said at home; public schools are not religious institutions.

As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids. I don't care to be caught in the middle of a crossfire between a nut-bag and an amateur, or two or three or four. How many of those amateurs are well intended verses simply itching to play combat?

It is misinformed to contend that stalking city streets and malls with a .45 revolver is the same thing as toting a thirty-aught-six in the wide-open spaces. There are natural reasons that urban areas are usually blue, and rural areas are red. It's that fucking simple and the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home. You are free to make your home area a free fire zone but don't expect me to visit. Likewise, you will check your weapons when you come to Dodge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?

Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others: case in point, morning prayer in a public school. I don't want or need God and I do not want my kids subjected to God. Prayers can be said at home; public schools are not religious institutions.

As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids. I don't care to be caught in the middle of a crossfire between a nut-bag and an amateur, or two or three or four. How many of those amateurs are well intended verses simply itching to play combat?

It is misinformed to contend that stalking city streets and malls with a .45 revolver is the same thing as toting a thirty-aught-six in the wide-open spaces. There are natural reasons that urban areas are usually blue, and rural areas are red. It's that fucking simple and the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home. You are free to make your home area a free fire zone but don't expect me to visit. Likewise, you will check your weapons when you come to Dodge.

So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?

I violate my freedom of speech?

Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others:

I have freedom of religion. When did I say I had freedom to impose on others?

As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids.

You can eliminate my right because "offends" and "upsets"?

the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home.

Like with abortion?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You are full of empty opinions. Have you anything on the order of premise, premise, conclusion?
You claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,

Yes, I did so claim but what you seem to have missed is that I did so in mocking another poster's lame and naked opinion.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?

I violate my freedom of speech?

Freedom of religion can be abused by those who would not merely practice their faith but seek to impose it on others:

I have freedom of religion. When did I say I had freedom to impose on others?

As for holstered six-guns on city streets, the strutting offends me, and upsets my grandkids.

You can eliminate my right because "offends" and "upsets"?

the cure to our differences is in the conservative value of legislating closer to home.

Like with abortion?

You ask for examples, I gave some. Those examples where not charges against what you personally may or may not have done. Many posters here want to make every fucking post a personal matter, note the habit of name-calling. While I confess having tired of such attacks and began responding in kind over the past several pages, it is not my usual style, and there is plenty of evidence on this thread to support that claim.

It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion. Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?

Don't clip what I wrote and present it out of context. "Offends and upsets" was an introduction, the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations.

Yes, just like with abortion. Despite personal values, I have no interest in imposing abortion laws on the other side of the country; not because it doesn't bother me but because I know it's fruitless. However, I will also expect that people on that other side of the country mind their own business.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ignoring the castration joke that I initiated, can you be just a bit more specific about what it that I supposedly ignored?

Sure.
Post 258
Post 259
And you shall now fail, yet again, to meaningfully respond

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you're not familiar with the fact that you violate your freedom of speech if you falsely exclaim "fire" in a crowded theater?

You do not understand the fire in a theater idiom.
You do not violate your rights at all.
You -do- falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger when you do this.
In doing so, you could be charged with reckless endangerment or any number of similar crimes.
In your defense you cannot claim "free speech" because "free speech" does not include falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

There you go.
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, I did so claim but what you seem to have missed is that I did so in mocking another poster's lame and naked opinion.

^^^
Does not change the fact you claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Says the pussy who’s afraid of inanimate objects. Lulz.

I played your ad hominem games for a while, but no more. It's become a bore. So, I'll ignore your "pussy" remark.

I did my time in combat, and yes, I fear the capacity of some inanimate objects - or more accurately I fear some of the morons at the controls. Those who do not so respect, are a big part of the problem in this country.

However, as similarly written to another, I hold no desire to impose rules for faraway places and people. Of course, I'll expect the same in return.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

^^^
Does not change the fact you claim a necessary relationship that you cannot demonstrate,

Be more specific.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You do not understand the fire in a theater idiom.
You do not violate your rights at all.
You -do- falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger when you do this.
In doing so, you could be charged with reckless endangerment or any number of similar crimes.
In your defense you cannot claim "free speech" because "free speech" does not include falsely place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

There you go.
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

Free fire zones put people at risk.

That said, purely as matter of promoting proper grammar. The 2ndA contains a prefatory clause, a qualifying of your right to bear arms. I presented evidence of what the founding fathers meant by a "well-regulated militia". Read it and weep.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Free fire zones put people at risk.

The fact "risk" is not "clear, present, and immediate danger" aside...
By "free fire zones" you mean "anywhere that's not a gun-free zone" - and as such, your claim is nonsense

So, I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That said, purely as matter of promoting proper grammar. The 2ndA contains a prefatory clause, a qualifying of your right to bear arms. I presented evidence of what the founding fathers meant by a "well-regulated militia". Read it and weep.

 

[Orangecat]

However, as similarly written to another, I hold no desire to impose rules for faraway places and people. Of course, I'll expect the same in return.

You do you, I’ll do me. We won’t have any problems if you don’t overstep those boundaries, be it in person or via government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You ask for examples, I gave some. Those examples where not charges against what you personally may or may not have done. Many posters here want to make every fucking post a personal matter, note the habit of name-calling. While I confess having tired of such attacks and began responding in kind over the past several pages, it is not my usual style, and there is plenty of evidence on this thread to support that claim.

It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion. Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?

Don't clip what I wrote and present it out of context. "Offends and upsets" was an introduction, the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations.

Yes, just like with abortion. Despite personal values, I have no interest in imposing abortion laws on the other side of the country; not because it doesn't bother me but because I know it's fruitless. However, I will also expect that people on that other side of the country mind their own business.

You ask for examples, I gave some.

I asked for examples of rights given by the Constitution.

It isn't an issue of whether you imposed your religion. Did Christians at one time impose their prayers in public schools?

Did they? Do they today?

"Offends and upsets" was an introduction,

Yes. My right to bear arms can be reduced by your "upset".
Can my right to free speech be reduced by your upset?
And my freedom of religion?

What about double jeopardy?

the meat of the argument was with not appreciating free fire zones managed by unregulated militias of unknown qualifications and motivations.

Now my rights depend on qualifications you want to impose on me?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

a qualifying of your right to bear arms.

They were "qualifying" it, just before saying "shall not be infringed"?

You seem confused.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They were "qualifying" it, just before saying "shall not be infringed"?
You seem confused.

-Voluntarily- confused.

 

[BackAgain]

Do as Lurch says not as Lurch does.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In 1969 after returning from Nam, I was awarded a class date for Rotary Wing Flight School and sent to Ft Rucker, Alabama. My wife went with me, and surprise, she turned up pregnant. However, I did not realize she was pregnant until the fetus was expelled in a toilet bowl. Obviously, the fetus was very young - but I can't pinpoint the age. Honestly, I can't even be sure what my wife knew that I did not. Appreciating that everything that fetus might have become was already there, I have mused many times over what the child, who didn't make it, might have become. It haunts me.

While I respect a woman's rights, I could never be the one to authorize, or push for an abortion. It's not who I am. You should quit making assumptions about people based on ignorant generalizations.

As for gun free zones, is that what they have in TEXAS? Regardless, free fire zones at the malls are not the solution. There's a reason the US Military closely manages "lock and load"... perhaps you could explain that to me.

Locked and loaded weapon is loaded round chambered and on safe. Prepared to fight. I smell bullshit anyone who has been in combat is aware of the dangers in the civilian population.