ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

Pages : 1 [2]

Aeolwind

01-20-2013, 06:23 PM

Wyoming going the extra mile:

http://www.kgwn.tv/story/20627910/proposed-wyoming-gun-law-would-override-federal-law

Here in Tennessee they are drafting similar legislation.

OforOppression

01-20-2013, 06:23 PM

holy SHIT hi aeolwind

thats how you know my threads are the best they bring the best folks

Humerox

01-20-2013, 11:23 PM

Wyoming going the extra mile:

http://www.kgwn.tv/story/20627910/proposed-wyoming-gun-law-would-override-federal-law

Here in Tennessee they are drafting similar legislation.

They can't override the Supremacy Clause.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

If they try, they'd be attempting to ignore one part of the Constitution to "protect" a perceived right in another.

Morons.

Humerox

01-20-2013, 11:26 PM

I don't need to guess at what they thought. They wrote it down for those of us that learned to read.

Um yeah. On an off note...that's really a pretty stupid remark. I know you're not stupid...but that statement sure is.

Humerox

01-20-2013, 11:29 PM

If Congress didn't want 2A to include nukes, they should have ratified the Constitution when nukes were created. Same with tanks, full autos, etc. They didn't, so nukes, tanks, and full autos are technically legal for private ownership. If you don't want 2A to include nukes, you should write a "WTF" letter to your Congressmen.

And that's a pretty intelligent statement, tbh.

Arclyte

01-21-2013, 12:00 AM

Swish

01-21-2013, 12:03 AM

I'd kill for a 10 clip pistol... srsly its shit being here, mandem be comin at pplz with kitchen knives and bats :(

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:38 AM

It's cute watching you pick and choose which parts of the constitution to honor based solely on your shitty opinion

Hey smart-ass...tell me what arms the Constitution says you can bear.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 07:27 AM

Hey smart-ass...tell me what arms the Constitution says you can bear.

all of them.

Kagatob

01-21-2013, 07:36 AM

I have $5 million. Where's my M1A1HA?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 11:59 AM

all of them.

Says who?

Autotune

01-21-2013, 12:02 PM

Says who?

where does it say you can't?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:05 PM

Here's the correct fucking answer, gents. The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.

When they do, you guys might have something to bitch about. Until then,you're full of shit.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 12:08 PM

Autotune

01-21-2013, 12:09 PM

and you're full of shit.

They said arms as in all arms, if they wanted people to have inferior arms compared to the standing army, they'd have stated it like that.

Aka, you can stfu.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 12:10 PM

This isn't the bible where you try to interpret the words and phrases to benefit your ideals and how you think things should be or should have been.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 12:19 PM

They can't override the Supremacy Clause.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

If they try, they'd be attempting to ignore one part of the Constitution to "protect" a perceived right in another.

Morons.
Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

I don't need to guess at what they thought. They wrote it down for those of us that learned to read.
Um yeah. On an off note...that's really a pretty stupid remark. I know you're not stupid...but that statement sure is.
All I did in the post prior to that one was repeat what the authors had already written. There was no guesswork involved.

If Congress didn't want 2A to include nukes, they should have ratified the Constitution when nukes were created. Same with tanks, full autos, etc. They didn't, so nukes, tanks, and full autos are technically legal for private ownership. If you don't want 2A to include nukes, you should write a "WTF" letter to your Congressmen.
And that's a pretty intelligent statement, tbh.
Thank you. It's simply the result of being logically consistent. If "arms" means, well, "arms," then it is apparent that this would be the only legal course of action. Anything else is void ab initio.

The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.
Really? The prefatory clause removes all doubt when it explains the purpose of the operative clause. Anything available to the government (of, by, and for the people) is to be available to the people. Else a free state cannot be secured.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:19 PM

This isn't the bible where you try to interpret the words and phrases to benefit your ideals and how you think things should be or should have been.

Lol...wut?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:22 PM

Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

Well...gee, I don't know. You know like maybe...you know when...state law conflicts with federal law?

Lexical

01-21-2013, 12:26 PM

Humerox, you have yet to demonstrate a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and its laws. Until you are able, I firmly request for you to stop posting.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 12:28 PM

Well...gee, I don't know. You know like maybe...you know when...state law conflicts with federal law?
A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:29 PM

Humerox, you have yet to demonstrate a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and its laws. Until you are able, I firmly request for you to stop posting.

Please enlighten me, Lex. You know...since we have whole fields of study dedicated to understanding things like...you know...Constitutional Law.

If everyone had a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and laws, we wouldn't need courts and lawyers and all that nonsense now would we?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:33 PM

A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 12:40 PM

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

there is nothing to interpret

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:41 PM

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:42 PM

there is nothing to interpret

Stop trolling, lol. You can't actually think that.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 12:45 PM

Stop trolling, lol. You can't actually think that.

I don't think it, I know it. You don't write a clear statement and then expect people to go "but what did they mean????"

It's wrote out clearly.

The only thing is, they had no idea what would or wouldn't be created from then till now.

Regardless, Firearms are arms, until the government redefines the term arms to mean what it wants, there is nothing to interpret.

Resheph

01-21-2013, 12:50 PM

I don't think it, I know it. You don't write a clear statement and then expect people to go "but what did they mean????"

It's wrote out clearly.

The only thing is, they had no idea what would or wouldn't be created from then till now.

Regardless, Firearms are arms, until the government redefines the term arms to mean what it wants, there is nothing to interpret.

Do you seriously think that, when the Constitution was written, they intended on citizens carrying weapons capable of killing 20+ people?

People who take a document written over 200 years ago literally scare me...

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:50 PM

Regardless, Firearms are arms, until the government redefines the term arms to mean what it wants, there is nothing to interpret.

Redefines?

Define "arms" as it relates to the Constitution. Show supporting evidence.

That's your assignment, Jim.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 12:53 PM

Please enlighten me, Lex. You know...since we have whole fields of study dedicated to understanding things like...you know...Constitutional Law.

If everyone had a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and laws, we wouldn't need courts and lawyers and all that nonsense now would we?

Some of us Humerox don't read one or two lines from the constitution than try to make a legal argument about federal law. Also, with this post you highlight your ignorance on the subject yet again. I again request for you to stop posting.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:56 PM

Do you seriously think that, when the Constitution was written, they intended on citizens carrying weapons capable of killing 20+ people?

People who take a document written over 200 years ago literally scare me...

That's why there's more than one school of thought when approaching the Constitution.

Ahem...for AUTOTUNE...Constitutional Theory 101:

There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God's law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called "originalists." Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called "non-originalists." In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain "fundamental rights" that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 12:57 PM

Some of us Humerox don't read one or two lines from the constitution than try to make a legal argument about federal law. Also, with this post you highlight your ignorance on the subject yet again. I again request for you to stop posting.

Refer to my post ^^

Lexical

01-21-2013, 01:01 PM

Am I supposed to be in awe of your copy pasta skills?

HEY GUISE! I NO SO MUCH BOUT DA CONSTITUTION! CHEK IT OWT!

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia

Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom

Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl. Carroll

Virginia
John Blair
James Madison Jr.

North Carolina
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson

South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler

Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin

New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King

Connecticut
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman

New York
Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt. Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris

Resheph

01-21-2013, 01:04 PM

They said arms as in all arms, if they wanted people to have inferior arms compared to the standing army, they'd have stated it like that.

Untrained civilians having the same weaponry as trained military soldiers in today's army is plain stupid. Having single-shot pistols is one thing, having 200-round magazines for an automatic weapon, plastic explosives, RPGs and tanks as a civilian is just asking for trouble.

The military has changed a lot in 200+ years... people need to change their mindsets as well.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 01:04 PM

I guess because it's because I'm smart enough to look for what's relevant to copy and paste.

You're not a real fan of citing sources are you? :D

Autotune

01-21-2013, 01:05 PM

Do you seriously think that, when the Constitution was written, they intended on citizens carrying weapons capable of killing 20+ people?

People who take a document written over 200 years ago literally scare me...

I already answered this in what you quoted.

What you seem to forget tho, is that they already had weapons that could kill multiple people and they had tactics that a single person could kill multiple people.

What scares me are people that are as ignorant as you. You think banning "assault style" rifles will somehow limit the amount of people that can be killed at once, totally disregarding that with 2 pistols that have 10 round magazines can easily kill as many people. Even 1 pistol with a 10 round magazine. A man with 2 rifles each with 10 round magazines can do just as well from a distance as a man with 1 rifle and a 30 round magazine.

Your ignorance is far more frightening than someone who takes words literal written clearly.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 01:17 PM

Some of us Humerox don't read one or two lines from the constitution than try to make a legal argument about federal law.

That's what you're doing.

Also...since your copy paste skills are so awesome yourself...show me in the document you copied and pasted where your supporting arguments are going to lie.

Because brother...you left out all the AMENDMENTS. Pretty genius move there...tell someone their copy/paste skills suck when any possible supporting evidence of your own position isn't included in what you copied/pasted.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 01:25 PM

You're not a real fan of citing sources are you? :D

This posts clearly illustrates either Humerox's complete disregard of reading other people's posts or his amazing ability to write with little to no reading comprehension.

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side. It is really uncanny. Also, the copy pasta you referred to was just as relevant to what we were arguing about as mine was. Try harder though. If I believed in no child left behind, I would give you a gold star and send you to remedial classes, but since I don't, here is a link I think best suits your intellectual capabilities: http://www.mcstate.com/careers/

Lexical

01-21-2013, 01:27 PM

That's what you're doing.

Also...since your copy paste skills are so awesome yourself...show me in the document you copied and pasted where your supporting arguments are going to lie.

Because brother...you left out all the AMENDMENTS. Pretty genius move there...tell someone their copy/paste skills suck when any possible supporting evidence of your own position isn't included in what you copied/pasted.

Quick question, are you on drugs or do you really not know what is going on?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 01:39 PM

This posts clearly illustrates either Humerox's complete disregard of reading other people's posts or his amazing ability to write with little to no reading comprehension.

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side. It is really uncanny. Also, the copy pasta you referred to was just as relevant to what we were arguing about as mine was. Try harder though. If I believed in no child left behind, I would give you a gold star and send you to remedial classes, but since I don't, here is a link I think best suits your intellectual capabilities: http://www.mcstate.com/careers/

We were arguing about how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now it's nice that you put the Constitution up there for us...but you left out the Second Amendment.

When we started all this you seemed pretty intelligent, but you've devolved into something that spits out ad hominem like Skittles.

And I have yet to see you post any real scientific argument that supports your opinions. You regurgitate other links people have (like using the NRA analyst to support gun statistics) posted without even taking the time to read them. How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing. You might want to start doing that yourself. You may learn something.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 01:40 PM

Quick question, are you on drugs or do you really not know what is going on?

You're a fucking moron, lol.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 01:47 PM

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side.

Yeah...fucking uncanny isn't it? Not that we'd need interpretation or definition for clarification...right?

Talk about making my fucking arguments for me, lol.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 01:47 PM

If we are going to interpret which guns people can and can't have, then perhaps we should interpret what free speech people can and can't say.

Why not ban harsh words so that we no longer hurt people's feelings which could cause them to go on these murderous sprees?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 01:50 PM

Autotune

01-21-2013, 01:52 PM

What planet do you live on, bro?

:)

With this logic, the same one you do apparently.

Resheph

01-21-2013, 01:57 PM

If we are going to interpret which guns people can and can't have, then perhaps we should interpret what free speech people can and can't say.

We already do.

* Go to the movies and yell 'fire!', lemme know how that turns out for ya.
* Catch a flight to... well, anywhere. Tell a random passenger you have a bomb. Talk to you in 20 years.
* Go to a beach and yell 'shark!' in the summer. I want a video.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:05 PM

We already do.

* Go to the movies and yell 'fire!', lemme know how that turns out for ya.
* Catch a flight to... well, anywhere. Tell a random passenger you have a bomb. Talk to you in 20 years.
* Go to a beach and yell 'shark!' in the summer. I want a video.

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 02:06 PM

Let's let him off the hook, lol...

There are several common law exceptions including obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is civil law liability, as well as making false statements (lying) in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government, speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information, false advertising, perjury, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, and patents. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions.

Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.

No definition or clarificaion needed there, either...is there Autotune? You know...since the Constitution is fucking clear about all this, right?

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:09 PM

Resheph

01-21-2013, 02:10 PM

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

I'm not saying anything you're saying is illegal. I'm simply pointing out that free speech has, indeed, been limited in scope.

This thread is something I come to when bored. TBH it's a pointless argument because those who are dead-set on their argument won't listen to anyone else and those in the middle have no argument because people either a) agree with them and don't need convincing or b) are so stuck on their own views they're impossible to convince.

It's like religion. You can point out fallacies in someone's religion for a decade and not get anywhere. Same for politics.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 02:11 PM

All of those are less dangerous than what I spoke of. So why are those "illegal" as you say and what I say isn't?

So it's OK with you to limit the First Amendment...which is much clearer than the Second...yet no one can do anything to define and understand more clearly what the Second Amendment really means?

Srs?

Resheph

01-21-2013, 02:14 PM

As an aside, the original intent of free speech was to allow citizens to speak out against their government without fear of reprisal. Following this thought process led to the laws stated preventing certain types of speech from being 'free'.

Bringing up free speech only hurts the pro-gun crowd because if speech can be censored (within reason) without specifics being in the Constitution, guns can also be limited in the same manner. The catch with gun control is that you simply cannot fight the US military if the soldiers do as commanded. You let loose a few RPGs and they carpetbomb your town. It's not even a contest.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 02:14 PM

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:16 PM

So it's OK with you to limit the First Amendment...which is much clearer than the Second...yet no one can do anything to define and understand more clearly what the Second Amendment really means?

Srs?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm showing you how the first has already been fucked over. I'm asking why not go further and ban harsh language so people aren't pushed to these types of crimes?

Let's ban harsh language so people's feelings don't get hurt. It will be as effective as banning any fire arm or magazine and the odds of people obeying it are similar.

Resheph

01-21-2013, 02:25 PM

That's not what I'm saying, I'm showing you how the first has already been fucked over. I'm asking why not go further and ban harsh language so people aren't pushed to these types of crimes?

Let's ban harsh language so people's feelings don't get hurt. It will be as effective as banning any fire arm or magazine and the odds of people obeying it are similar.

* Harsh language
* Hand gestures
* Written words
* Looks. No, srsly, the way people look at one another

You are so hard-up for guns that you're actually suggesting human beings should be put in rooms, alone, with no communication or contact. You expect us to take you seriously, really?

Fun fact: my cousin went to prison for beating an elderly couple nearly to death with a baseball bat... because they breathed too loud. I shit you not.

You can limit the risk of someone being shot with a weapon, or limit the number of people shot with a weapon, but limiting how people react to something is much, much harder. Impossible, really.

Also, bam: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16624485-horrific-scene-after-teen-allegedly-shoots-parents-siblings?lite

Humerox

01-21-2013, 02:27 PM

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:33 PM

* Harsh language
* Hand gestures
* Written words
* Looks. No, srsly, the way people look at one another

You are so hard-up for guns that you're actually suggesting human beings should be put in rooms, alone, with no communication or contact. You expect us to take you seriously, really?

Fun fact: my cousin went to prison for beating an elderly couple nearly to death with a baseball bat... because they breathed too loud. I shit you not.

You can limit the risk of someone being shot with a weapon, or limit the number of people shot with a weapon, but limiting how people react to something is much, much harder. Impossible, really.

Also, bam: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16624485-horrific-scene-after-teen-allegedly-shoots-parents-siblings?lite

Never said that they be put in rooms.

I said, why shouldn't the US government pass a law to keep people from using harsh language, thus forcing people to be nice to others to prevent people from being pushed to mass shootings.

I'm not suggesting it be implemented, I'm asking (for the 3rd or 4th time now because it's been dodged) why not pass this law?

This assault weapon ban is a ban on a type of weapon that has been shown to be rarely used in gun violent crimes compared to all gun violent crimes. So why try to ban this weapon compared to the weapons that contribute the most gun violence?

If it's because this type of weapon was used in a few school shootings, why not ban the words and actions that pushed those people to committing these crimes? The 1st has already been butchered previously, so there isn't any debate whether they can or can't push this through, yeah?

Resheph

01-21-2013, 02:36 PM

OK, I'm going back to work. Auto, no idea who you are in-game and I'm not going to avoid you or anything, but talking to you here is not unlike smashing my face into a concrete floor, painful and completely pointless.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:37 PM

Why do that and not legally define what arms we can bear under the Constitution?

Banning "harsh language" is a further encroachment on the First Amendment whereas a clear legal definition of the Second isn't an encroachment at all.

And...a clear legal definition of what your rights under the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment are will better help protect them.

Right?

Mainly because the weapons of today may not be the weapons of tomorrow, or are you forgetting your argument as to why the 2nd doesn't need to apply today like it did when they wrote it.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 02:39 PM

Really? The prefatory clause removes all doubt when it explains the purpose of the operative clause. Anything available to the government (of, by, and for the people) is to be available to the people. Else a free state cannot be secured.See..now that's an argument that could fly. The problem is...and think about this one...that argument would do gun owners more harm than it would good.

Would you agree?
No. Even if it would, it's still the law. It's our civic duty to uphold the law even when we don't feel it benefits us personally.

]A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.
The only legal way to "re-interpret" an amendment is to ratify it. The states and the people have the duty to defy anything short of that.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:40 PM

as for the story that was linked, there were only 5 people.

Are you suggesting that he was only capable of committing that crime with that weapon?

I can assure you any number of non"assault style" weapon could have been used.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:47 PM

For the record, I don't personally own any rifle. I have a pistol that holds 17rounds normally. I own two 17 round magazines and two 20 round magazines for it.

To suggest that an assault weapon ban would have stopped that kid from killing those people is ignorant. There are an array of weapons that do not fall into the "assault weapon" category that can be as destructive or even more destructive.

The problem is, that you people are so blinded by your limited point that you don't comprehend what people are telling you.

It's like this.

Pens are causing papers to burst into flames after being wrote on. Well, blue pens are the most popular pen color people choose to own, yet black pens are the major culprits of papers bursting into flames. Let's ban these blue pens because they were used to set multiple paper fires at a movie theater and a school, where as the black pens are generally only used on the streets despite the fact that more paper fires are set with black pens.

This will help curb the paper fires greatly...

Lexical

01-21-2013, 02:48 PM

We were arguing about how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now it's nice that you put the Constitution up there for us...but you left out the Second Amendment.
No, we were discussing your clear lack of understanding of constitutional law regardless of school of thought. You ignorantly thought that since people interpret the constitution differently that somehow your flagrant and rampant assertions are valid. Either that or you confused me with Stealin.

When we started all this you seemed pretty intelligent, but you've devolved into something that spits out ad hominem like Skittles.
I have intelligent discussions as long as my peer is able to possess one. When I find my peer so fervent on the subject they are unable to listen or if I find that my positions are being discarded for no justifiable reasons other than my peer being unable to answer it or if the situation is one in which intellectual progress can not be made, then I no longer continue in such a manner. Originally when we started this debate, you seemed intelligent enough and so I engaged you as an intelligent individual. You have not shown the same rhetoric in this thread and generally made child like taunts, just didn't listen, or used ad hominem and straw man tactics. I find my ad hominem well suited to your "arguments" in this thread as you behaved illogically and childishly.

And I have yet to see you post any real scientific argument that supports your opinions. You regurgitate other links people have (like using the NRA analyst to support gun statistics) posted without even taking the time to read them. How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing. You might want to start doing that yourself. You may learn something.

You are right! There is no real scientific evidence for my argument. There is also no real scientific evidence for yours. Yet, I claimed, many times in fact, that such a thing was impossible(with today's technology. I felt like I needed to add that in). All either side has in sociological studies is correlation via statistical evidence.

Vellatri posted an NRA unofficial analyst's article and then verified them through the proper crime statistics. Just because the man's position might be pro-NRA does not mean that his study is biased. His statistics used more accurate metrics on the impact of assault rifle bans than the Australian article you posted. His statistics were taken from a much larger global pool making his case stronger while according to your "scientific data" I could shoot 500+ people and as long as only 4 died, it would not constitute a mass shooting. Do you honestly not see how flawed that metric is? To reiterate my point, I do no think the Australian article you posted was complete bollocks. It did make some good points, but its major point was backed by a very skewed (and probably manipulated) statistic that you have just refused to acknowledge as such since that is the only piece of "evidence" you have brought to table which honestly makes me think it is the ONLY piece of evidence you have.

Did you know I used to be for the ban of assault rifles? I really was. I looked into statistics and tried to find what evidence I could to make my case stronger since I enjoy getting into perspicacious debates with people. As I read further into things(yes I read the article Vellatri linked), I found there was not only more evidence against my original position but stronger evidence as well. I then reconsidered my position and adjusted it accordingly. Are you able to do the same? If not, then there is no reason to have an intelligent debate as it can not be made.

I am all for going back to having an intelligent discussion, but you will have to behave accordingly or I am not going to waste my time. Make your points well worded, clear and backed with evidence and reason and I will respond in kind. Act like child and I will treat you like a child.

Resheph

01-21-2013, 02:55 PM

To suggest that an assault weapon ban would have stopped that kid from killing those people is ignorant. There are an array of weapons that do not fall into the "assault weapon" category that can be as destructive or even more destructive.

You know, Auto, I wanted to come back to tell you I've put some thought into your arguments and have decided you're right. Banning assault weapons won't help.

I hereby change my argument to this: ban ALL guns. All of them. I've already shown that the idea of citizens fighting the current US military is laughable at best, so the original idea of bearing arms to allow a revolt if need be is moot. No assault weapons, no pistols, not even flintlock.

Thank you, Auto, for pointing out the error in my logic.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 02:57 PM

You know, Auto, I wanted to come back to tell you I've put some thought into your arguments and have decided you're right. Banning assault weapons won't help.

I hereby change my argument to this: ban ALL guns. All of them. I've already shown that the idea of citizens fighting the current US military is laughable at best, so the original idea of bearing arms to allow a revolt if need be is moot. No assault weapons, no pistols, not even flintlock.

Thank you, Auto, for pointing out the error in my logic.

At least then, you might accomplish what your mission statement is.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:05 PM

I am all for going back to having an intelligent discussion, but you will have to behave accordingly or I am not going to waste my time. Make your points well worded, clear and backed with evidence and reason and I will respond in kind. Act like child and I will treat you like a child.

Behaving accordingly to you is nothing short of agreeing with your arguments, lol. When I posted that scientific study from the University of Australia you told me you didn't have the time to go back through it and refute any statistical data they used, or lay a foundation to argue the methodology they used.

You've told me more than once here that you didn't have the "time" to look into anything I showed you, so why should I waste my time arguing with you?

I won't.

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.

See the First Amendment for an example of balance, and remember that we can use the underlying principles for precedent. That's one of the reason courts exist.

Goofier

01-21-2013, 03:06 PM

I've already shown that the idea of citizens fighting the current US military is laughable at best, so the original idea of bearing arms to allow a revolt if need be is moot.

Yeah, well, a lot of people actually IN the military might decide things need to become... 'Liberated'? But I can totally get your thought process: All military = brainwashed, therefore no chance any of them think for themselves, and all follow orders like robots.

Good luck with that, I'm hangin' on to my AK, and have a new AR on the way.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:11 PM

No, we were discussing your clear lack of understanding of constitutional law regardless of school of thought. You ignorantly thought that since people interpret the constitution differently that somehow your flagrant and rampant assertions are valid.

Where did I say that I certain understanding of Constitutional law that you don't? And since people interpret the Constitution differently, it's the responsibility of the courts to clarify it.

Show me where I've argued differently.

What flagrant and ramapant assertions? The fact that I said we could interpret the Second Amendment to mean we can carry suitcase nukes and Stinger missiles? Using your logic, we can.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 03:15 PM

Where did I say that I certain understanding of Constitutional law that you don't? And since people interpret the Constitution differently, it's the responsibility of the courts to clarify it.

Show me where I've argued differently.

What flagrant and ramapant assertions? The fact that I said we could interpret the Second Amendment to mean we can carry suitcase nukes and Stinger missiles? Using your logic, we can.

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Can you call stinger missiles firearms?
Can you call a suitcase nukes firearms?
Can you call an AR15 a firearm?
Can you call a musket a firearm?
Can you call a tank a firearm?
Can you call a RPG a firearm?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:15 PM

Yeah, well, a lot of people actually IN the military might decide things need to become... 'Liberated'? But I can totally get your thought process: All military = brainwashed, therefore no chance any of them think for themselves, and all follow orders like robots.

Good luck with that, I'm hangin' on to my AK, and have a new AR on the way.

Not to be the devil's advocate...but the military didn't have any compunction about relieving gun owners of their guns in Louisiana back in 2005.

And my money says most people would give up their junk just as meekly as those people did.

Gimme Yer Guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wfp7qBAgGM)

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:17 PM

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Can you call stinger missiles firearms?
Can you call a suitcase nukes firearms?
Can you call an AR15 a firearm?
Can you call a musket a firearm?
Can you call a tank a firearm?
Can you call a RPG a firearm?

The Constitution doesn't say "firearms" bro.

Now you're interpreting.

;)

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:18 PM

Matter of fact...the experts say that the framers likely meant "arms" in the same way we mean "weapons".

Just sayin.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:19 PM

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Do you see your mistake, here?

;)

Autotune

01-21-2013, 03:21 PM

Not to be the devil's advocate...but the military didn't have any compunction about relieving gun owners of their guns in Louisiana back in 2005.

And my money says most people would give up their junk just as meekly as those people did.

Gimme Yer Guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wfp7qBAgGM)

Oh, so you're saying this disaster scenario would be exactly like a revolution scenario?

Let's be real, if these people were being forced to give up their arms indefinitely for the rest of their lives, how many do you think then would have freely given up their firearms?

How long before those soldiers who are being asked to fire upon people from their own state before they switch sides?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:25 PM

Oh, so you're saying this disaster scenario would be exactly like a revolution scenario?

Let's be real, if these people were being forced to give up their arms indefinitely for the rest of their lives, how many do you think then would have freely given up their firearms?

How long before those soldiers who are being asked to fire upon people from their own state before they switch sides?

I don't know. I'm just raising the question.

Do you see a "revolution" scenario as something clean cut? And how did those people know that their arms weren't being permanently confiscated? The troops weren't carrying around any documents with them when they went house-to-house. You can clearly see what they were carrying...and what instructions they had...AND what they did.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 03:26 PM

The Constitution doesn't say "firearms" bro.

Now you're interpreting.

;)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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

arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
Synonyms
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament

armaments plural of ar·ma·ment (Noun)
Noun
Military weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments".
The process of equipping military forces for war.

Now, let's apply the term military weapons to what existed primarily back in those times. Cannons and Firearms.

Both are perfectly legal to own.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 03:27 PM

I don't know. I'm just raising the question.

Do you see a "revolution" scenario as something clean cut? And how did those people know that their arms weren't being permanently confiscated? The troops weren't carrying around any documents with them when they went house-to-house. You can clearly see what they were carrying...and what instructions they had...AND what they did.

Lmao, are you being serious with this? I can't tell.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:36 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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

Now, let's apply the term military weapons to what existed primarily back in those times. Cannons and Firearms.

Both are perfectly legal to own.

But the Constitution doesn't say that. It says we have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't limit what arms we can keep...and the courts have surmised what they might have meant, but no one has clarified what they did mean.

Any argument either way is really opinion. Just as much as it's my opinion people shouldn't carry semi-automatic or other "assault" style weapons. I've never said otherwise.

Until we clarify it all...what we do have the right to carry is pure conjecture.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:38 PM

Lmao, are you being serious with this? I can't tell.

So one day someone is going to say "let's revolt!" and everyone is gonna grab their AK-47's and such and go defend freedom.

Is that what you're telling me? Even the founding fathers knew better.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 03:40 PM

But the Constitution doesn't say that. It says we have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't limit what arms we can keep...and the courts have surmised what they might have meant, but no one has clarified what they did mean.

Any argument either way is really opinion. Just as much as it's my opinion people shouldn't carry semi-automatic or other "assault" style weapons. I've never said otherwise.

Until we clarify it all...what we do have the right to carry is pure conjecture.

There is no way they could have wrote a term for a type of weapon that didn't exist.

Saying that the government intended its citizens to own nuclear weapons when there is no way they would have known what those are is silly.

Saying that the government didn't intend its citizens to own newer model firearms that function similar to the firearms they had is just as silly.

You can ban all the semi-auto "assault" firearms you want, I'll just buy a pre 1986 fully automatic M16 for 10grand or so, as it's perfectly legal.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:46 PM

There is no way they could have wrote a term for a type of weapon that didn't exist.

I agree with that.

Saying that the government intended its citizens to own nuclear weapons when there is no way they would have known what those are is silly.

I agree. I also think that includes "assault style" weapons. :)

Saying that the government didn't intend its citizens to own newer model firearms that function similar to the firearms they had is just as silly.

Sure. See Jon Stewart's "Assault Musket" (http://americablog.com/2013/01/amazing-jon-stewart-on-guns-video.html) for that. :D

You can ban all the semi-auto "assault" firearms you want, I'll just buy a pre 1986 fully automatic M16 for 10grand or so, as it's perfectly legal.

For now. :D

Kagatob

01-21-2013, 03:49 PM

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NI7PQG/ref=s9_simh_gw_p86_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=01BWKBXDJ12SK62BNY3X&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846

Autotune

01-21-2013, 03:50 PM

I agree with that.

I agree. I also think that includes "assault style" weapons. :)

Sure. See Jon Stewart's "Assault Musket" (http://americablog.com/2013/01/amazing-jon-stewart-on-guns-video.html) for that. :D

For now. :D

The only thing is, you're calling for a ban on cosmetics, hence the "style" aspect you keep talking about.

Ruger 10/22's wouldn't be banned with an assault weapon ban, however they function exactly the same as an AR15.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 03:56 PM

Regarding freedom of speech, if you use your speech to directly violate rights of another, that's illegal. Similar to misuse of guns. My right to all types of arms doesn't give me the right to take another's life with them. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is clearly an attempt to directly harm others by misusing speech.

How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing.

Wait, what? I assume you meant "Vellatri?" What study from an NRA analyst? I don't read much material from the NRA (unless someone sends it to me) because I can't stand them. Of course, just because something is stated by the NRA that doesn't make it false. Or true.

So one day someone is going to say "let's revolt!" and everyone is gonna grab their AK-47's and such and go defend freedom.

Is that what you're telling me? Even the founding fathers knew better.
Not quite how it usually plays out, but to deny that revolutions and secessions happen, even in the modern world, is to deny reality. It usually happens when a government crosses a line that the people are no longer willing to tolerate. Usually, a government won't cross such a line until it feels the citizenry has been sufficiently disarmed. The founders knew from experience that arms can help prevent or dispose of tyranny.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 03:58 PM

The only thing is, you're calling for a ban on cosmetics, hence the "style" aspect you keep talking about.

Ruger 10/22's wouldn't be banned with an assault weapon ban, however they function exactly the same as an AR15.

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

What the idiots in government know about weapons you can cram in a gnat's ass...and I agree with the sentiments people have about them learning to know what they're banning.

And then banning.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:02 PM

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NI7PQG/ref=s9_simh_gw_p86_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=01BWKBXDJ12SK62BNY3X&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846

Personal Flame-Thrower...gotta love it.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:02 PM

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

What the idiots in government know about weapons you can cram in a gnat's ass...and I agree with the sentiments people have about them learning to know what they're banning.

And then banning.

I'm guessing you mean, you want to ban every semi-automatic weapon?

Goofier

01-21-2013, 04:03 PM

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

What the idiots in government know about weapons you can cram in a gnat's ass...and I agree with the sentiments people have about them learning to know what they're banning.

And then banning.

You do understand that's not what was used in any of these recent 'tipping points', right?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:12 PM

You do understand that's not what was used in any of these recent 'tipping points', right?

Pray tell...do go on.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 04:14 PM

How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing.
Wait, what? I assume you meant "Vellatri?" What study from an NRA analyst? I don't read much material from the NRA (unless someone sends it to me) because I can't stand them. Of course, just because something is stated by the NRA that doesn't make it false. Or true.
You weren't referring to this (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813212&postcount=358), were you? That didn't come from the NRA, and there haven't been any refutations of its contents in that thread, either.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:14 PM

And I see what I did, lol. I meant "cocking" a hammer.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:21 PM

You weren't referring to this (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813212&postcount=358), were you? That didn't come from the NRA, and there haven't been any refutations of its contents in that thread, either.

Put this in the wrong thread.

I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.

And I'm right there with ya on gun violence. I was talking about mass shootings. People keep putting me on the wrong position on things...I agree that there's not any statistical evidence pointing to a decrease in overall gun violence when assault weapons are banned.

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.

Big difference. I don't want to dig for whatever article that was atm, lol.

Goofier

01-21-2013, 04:32 PM

Pray tell...do go on.

Sandy Hook, for instance.
Same semiautomatic AR that's been on the market since at least the mid-70s. Nothing new at all. One shot per trigger pull.

Goofier

01-21-2013, 04:33 PM

And I see what I did, lol. I meant "cocking" a hammer.

No problem, ain't gonna be that kind of dick :)

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:35 PM

I'm guessing you mean, you want to ban every semi-automatic weapon?

Yes.

This is OK.

http://www.ruger.com/products/no1MediumSporter/images/1327.jpg

And this is OK.

http://images.gunsinternational.com/listings/100313026-1-s.JPG

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 04:35 PM

Put this in the wrong thread.
Aah. My reply is over there (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820785&postcount=393) where it probably belongs anyway.
I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.
What? My statement (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=813212&postcount=358) was directed at gloine, not you. He was talking about Snopes.

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.
Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:36 PM

No problem, ain't gonna be that kind of dick :)

Lol...you had me. That's what I get for not checking a post.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:37 PM

I for one can't wait for people to start using homemade napalm to kill theaters worth of people. I want to seem them ban gasoline and household items.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:38 PM

Aah. My reply is over there (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820785&postcount=393) where it probably belongs anyway.

Well...I don't think 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to 1996 and 0 mass shootings since 1996 is statistically insignificant...

Lexical

01-21-2013, 04:39 PM

Behaving accordingly to you is nothing short of agreeing with your arguments, lol. When I posted that scientific study from the University of Australia you told me you didn't have the time to go back through it and refute any statistical data they used, or lay a foundation to argue the methodology they used.
Wow... just wow. First of all, no. I posted several times and even in the post you quoted the glaring problem I found with their statistics and you have yet to respond to. This is most likely due to the fact that you can't and all you can do is just ignore it. I gave you an example.

Your cookie cutting arguments not only exemplify your dolt behavior, they also augment your complete ineptitude to have an intelligent discussion. You clearly didn't read my post or much of them for that matter. You are just a monkey banging your head on a keyboard.

What I find the most surprising though is your complete narcissism. Every argument you have made, you were crushed in the same realm so you abscond to the next realm. We are now in the realm of constitutional law which you know little to nothing about which is unsurprising for a fast food cook at McDonalds. Did you ever get the promotion to cashier by the way? I really hope so

Second, all I expect from you is to either concede or refute it logically. You ignoring it and then telling me to reread a giant article isn't a basis for an argument while you slink away to another poorly and hastily formed argument based on your opinion.

You've told me more than once here that you didn't have the "time" to look into anything I showed you, so why should I waste my time arguing with you?

I told you I don't have time to look over it again. Your simian brain can't fathom that I suppose. How is your 47th chromosome?

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.
How did your head get so big to the point where you actually believe this? You can't just declare it to be so. This highlights your complete ignorance on the subject matter, and since you clearly unable to contribute anything of intellectual worth to this subject, I ask again for the chimpanzee behind humerox to stop posting.

You could be spending your time doing a lot more productive things like filling out that application to McDonalds I sent you. It would definitely suit society better than you gracing us with the fecal bile that spews from your mouth.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:40 PM

Yes.

This is OK.

http://www.ruger.com/products/no1MediumSporter/images/1327.jpg

And this is OK.

http://images.gunsinternational.com/listings/100313026-1-s.JPG

http://www.cmcgov.com/store/pc/catalog/95_797_detail.jpg

Ah, so I can keep this that I have coming in a few months then under your laws.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 04:41 PM

Humerox

01-21-2013, 04:43 PM

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 04:44 PM

Well...I don't think 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to 1996 and 0 mass shootings since 1996 is statistically insignificant...
Any statistician will admit that it's a small sample size. But like I said, it doesn't even matter. The increase in overall violence (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=812404&postcount=323) makes it a moot point.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:46 PM

Not under the laws I want, lol.

But seeing what kind of half-assed laws we've had in the past and the unwillingness to enforce them...I'd say that you may be right.

Which is unfortunate, because it won't work and we'll all be talking about how it never worked the NEXT mass murder around.

Sad.

This weapon cannot fire more than a single bullet without loading another manually into the chamber via "cocking a bolt".

Which is what you stated.

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 04:47 PM

Reality according to Humerox: 500+ shot and injured, 4 dead is NOT a mass shooting.

Resheph

01-21-2013, 04:48 PM

I for one can't wait for people to start using homemade napalm to kill theaters worth of people. I want to seem them ban gasoline and household items.

I know how to make both napalm and thermite. Neither will be military-grade but I guarantee you it'll bring a new meaning to Hell on Earth if you get it on you :P

Both require considerably more work than pop in a clip, load a round and pull a trigger to off 20 people, though. Both are also very dangerous to handle, even safely.

Resheph

01-21-2013, 04:50 PM

http://www.cmcgov.com/store/pc/catalog/95_797_detail.jpg

Ah, so I can keep this that I have coming in a few months then under your laws.

Honestly, I'd let you keep that. If you're f'ed up enough to wanna shoot someone, you're gonna do it, but you're not gonna shoot 10+ people in a period of 3 seconds with that rifle, not with any real accuracy (unless you were military trained to do so).

Lexical

01-21-2013, 04:51 PM

Both require considerably more work than pop in a clip, load a round and pull a trigger to off 20 people, though. Both are also very dangerous to handle, even safely.

I was reminded about the terrorist whose plan was to make the bomb on the plane, but all the chemicals mixed prematurely in his pants. I got a good chuckle.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:51 PM

I know how to make both napalm and thermite. Neither will be military-grade but I guarantee you it'll bring a new meaning to Hell on Earth if you get it on you :P

Both require considerably more work than pop in a clip, load a round and pull a trigger to off 20 people, though. Both are also very dangerous to handle, even safely.

This is to suggest someone like the aurora shooter wouldn't be capable of? He did plan ahead and had even set traps in his apartment that were considered "lethal".

There are plenty of other methods available too.

Here, you can pick up all kinds of good tips/tricks from one of these

http://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Pentagon-U-S-Military/dp/0975900900

I have one from way back (70s or so) and even in it, there are some nice tips/tricks.

Harmonium

01-21-2013, 04:52 PM

http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/5348485402_images_xlarge.jpg

Goofier

01-21-2013, 04:58 PM

This weapon cannot fire more than a single bullet without loading another manually into the chamber via "cocking a bolt".

Which is what you stated.

Yeah, hate to, but he's right.
First it was anything that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull.
Then it was anything semiautomatic.

This is the slippery slope, man.
Keep going, and you'll have harsh language outlawed.

And let's not forget, no guns during 9-11, no guns in Oklahoma City, etc.

I totally understand your point, but what IS your point?
You seem to change it a lot.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 04:59 PM

Honestly, I'd let you keep that. If you're f'ed up enough to wanna shoot someone, you're gonna do it, but you're not gonna shoot 10+ people in a period of 3 seconds with that rifle, not with any real accuracy (unless you were military trained to do so).

The distance one can be with this (even not militarily trained) combined with the power of the round, you can pin people down in certain settings that you could kill 10+ people. Not all within 10seconds, but you definitely could kill 10+ people in a minute.

This is a type of scenario most normal people would freeze in. Being shot from a person you cannot see and you do not know exactly where they are. A minute in this scenario would go by fast for the shooter and extremely slow for every victim trapped.

Also, there are many places that 10mins is more than enough time to shoot people and bug out before any law enforcement shows up.

Perhaps you are all forgetting Charles Whitman? Military trained yes, but he wasn't using the best of equipment either.

Goofier

01-21-2013, 04:59 PM

Yeah, hate to, but he's right.
First it was anything that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull.
Then it was anything semiautomatic.

This is the slippery slope, man.
Keep going, and you'll have harsh language outlawed.

And let's not forget, no guns during 9-11, no guns in Oklahoma City, etc.

I totally understand your point, but what IS your point?
You seem to change it a lot.

Sorry, poor quoting there, everyone get the point?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 05:02 PM

Wow... just wow. First of all, no. I posted several times and even in the post you quoted the glaring problem I found with their statistics and you have yet to respond to. This is most likely due to the fact that you can't and all you can do is just ignore it. I gave you an example.

I asked you where the problems were...sources, methodology, what? You said you didn't have time to look at it and you never refuted anything in the study with anything other than your own personal opinion.

Your cookie cutting arguments not only exemplify your dolt behavior, they also augment your complete ineptitude to have an intelligent discussion. You clearly didn't read my post or much of them for that matter. You are just a monkey banging your head on a keyboard.

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have. This is a personal attack...not a refutation of anything.

What I find the most surprising though is your complete narcissism. Every argument you have made, you were crushed in the same realm so you abscond to the next realm. We are now in the realm of constitutional law which you know little to nothing about which is unsurprising for a fast food cook at McDonalds. Did you ever get the promotion to cashier by the way? I really hope so

No one has crushed anything, lol. If anything we've come to understand that the Constitutional argument can support your position as well as mine...and is why I stated the courts need to clarify it, because the Constitution doesn't.

Second, all I expect from you is to either concede or refute it logically. You ignoring it and then telling me to reread a giant article isn't a basis for an argument while you slink away to another poorly and hastily formed argument based on your opinion.

It was a real scientific study. You said it was hogwash and sounded funny...I asked you where the problems were. Statistics, methodology...what? That was a real scientific study done by the University of Sydney...not some off-the-cuff news story from the Examiner.

I told you I don't have time to look over it again. Your simian brain can't fathom that I suppose. How is your 47th chromosome?

Because you'd rather argue opinion. You don't have time to learn anything...and I'll tell you something. You CAN'T refute that study with anything other than opinion. You're not capable of it. Val should probably take a look at it...we might be able to get some intelligent discourse on the subject then.

How did your head get so big to the point where you actually believe this? You can't just declare it to be so. This highlights your complete ignorance on the subject matter, and since you clearly unable to contribute anything of intellectual worth to this subject, I ask again for the chimpanzee behind humerox to stop posting.

Believe what? That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?

You could be spending your time doing a lot more productive things like filling out that application to McDonalds I sent you. It would definitely suit society better than you gracing us with the fecal bile that spews from your mouth.

Might interest you to know that I'm a volunteer with AmeriCorps, I'm an old fart that doesn't have to work anymore, and that I'm a decorated vet.

I don't usually slip up and let that much personal history escape onto these boards...but whatever. I'm proud of me...and I actually do advocate. You know...do silly things like call congressman and write them nice little letters and such.

You seem to have become very angry lately.

or in internetese...

umad.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 05:02 PM

btw, i hear you don't need to be military trained anymore to be a decent sniper.

http://www.sportoptics.com/burris-eliminator-laser-scope-4-16x50-200116.aspx

Humerox

01-21-2013, 05:06 PM

Autotune

01-21-2013, 05:09 PM

http://www.cmcgov.com/store/pc/catalog/95_797_detail.jpg

Ah, so I can keep this that I have coming in a few months then under your laws.

Not under the laws I want, lol.

But seeing what kind of half-assed laws we've had in the past and the unwillingness to enforce them...I'd say that you may be right.

Which is unfortunate, because it won't work and we'll all be talking about how it never worked the NEXT mass murder around.

Sad.

This weapon cannot fire more than a single bullet without loading another manually into the chamber via "cocking a bolt".

Which is what you stated.
No...I said a long time ago if you have to manually cock a bolt or pull back a hammer to fire individual rounds it's fine.

The weapon can look as scary as it wants to. I don't care, lol.

Um... which is it man?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 05:12 PM

If it fits what i want have at it. I didn't even really look at it, lol.

Might even discourage a few gang-bangers trying to home invade.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 05:12 PM

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have.
I already did, though.

No one has crushed anything, lol.
I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.

Val should probably take a look at it.
Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.

That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?
I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 05:16 PM

Perhaps you are all forgetting Charles Whitman? Military trained yes, but he wasn't using the best of equipment either.

No one is going to stop all madmen. Gun legislation isn't a panacea to gun violence.

I've never said that and never will. I'd have to be crazy to think it...but I think that the proposed changes are worthwhile efforts, and better than doing nothing at all.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 05:23 PM

No one is going to stop all madmen. Gun legislation isn't a panacea to gun violence.

I've never said that and never will. I'd have to be crazy to think it...but I think that the proposed changes are worthwhile efforts, and better than doing nothing at all.

If you think, because I am trying to prove how your suggestion is ineffective that I want nothing to change then you are seriously mistaken.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 05:24 PM

I think that the proposed changes are worthwhile efforts, and better than doing nothing at all.
Doing nothing at all is better than passing legislation that increases violence.

It's also better than violating the law of the land.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 05:27 PM

I already did, though.

I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.

Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.

I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.

Ok...lets first address the ratification business. It doesn't require state ratification to interpret the constitution...it does to amend it, yes. But we're not talking about amending it. We're talking about the fact that since the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the right to bear arms WAS an individual right (up until then the Supreme Court leaned toward the fact that it was as a militia) we don't really know what it means.

We know that if we apply it with an understanding that they mean militia, then we can expect it to mean whatever a modern militia would use.

The problem is also that people totally ignore A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does that part really mean if the right to bear arms is an individual right? Wouldn't the founding fathers have said simply that 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'? They made it awfully difficult to understand when that other part is in there.

Does that also mean that if you own arms, that you are required to be on call to a militia and bear them in defense? No one is addressing that, either. It's a pertinent question since the framers specifically included the militia in the Second Amendment.

Let me look for that study. :)

Resheph

01-21-2013, 05:27 PM

Also, there are many places that 10mins is more than enough time to shoot people and bug out before any law enforcement shows up.

It's not an issue of you 'bugging out' before the PD shows up, it's an issue of the potential victims being able to run for their lives before you off too many of them. Even with a silencer, after the 3rd person drops people will start to freak out.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 05:37 PM

It's not an issue of you 'bugging out' before the PD shows up, it's an issue of the potential victims being able to run for their lives before you off too many of them. Even with a silencer, after the 3rd person drops people will start to freak out.

A wal-mart parking lot on a busy day, from the top of the building.

Freak out all you want, but anyone even remotely reliable with a decent rifle is going to drop plenty of people, regardless of them "freaking out" or not.

Autotune

01-21-2013, 05:38 PM

Also, I don't like the term silencer. Please use suppressor lol.

Arclyte

01-21-2013, 05:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Autotune

01-21-2013, 05:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

I like this, because fuck you... i like it.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 06:00 PM

Wrong damn thread, again.

That's inaccurate in Australia.

I have two research studies here that prove otherwise. Research studies...not news reports, not biased or slanted journalism.

First...for Val.

University of Sydney (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf)

Then we have another study by:

Wilfrid Laurier University (http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf) in Canada.

Now...if you guys seriously want to argue, pick those apart with equal contradictory evidence.

Goofier

01-21-2013, 06:06 PM

No...I said a long time ago if you have to manually cock a bolt or pull back a hammer to fire individual rounds it's fine.

The weapon can look as scary as it wants to. I don't care, lol.

Wait, what?

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

And it gets more confusing from there, which is why I asked.
Please... Automatic, semiautomatic, single-shot.
Magazine... Clip...
Let's at least get the language right, or we have absolutely no chance of getting anything right.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 06:07 PM

I addressed this already. (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820636&postcount=313)

The problem is also that people totally ignore A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course not. I never ignored it. I used (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820449&postcount=270) it to justify the obvious fact that "arms" actually means "arms." That the prefatory clause outlines the reason for the operational clause, it is the "why" not the "what". It explains that an armed and well-trained populace is necessary to keep the state free. This clearly shows that the people are supposed to have access to the same arms as the government, which is of, by, and for the people.

Does that also mean that if you own arms, that you are required to be on call to a militia and bear them in defense?
Of course not. The Constitution doesn't say any such thing.

But we're not talking about amending it.
Until we do, the people have the legal right to any arms they please.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 06:15 PM

I addressed this already. (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820636&postcount=313)

Of course not. I never ignored it. I used (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=820449&postcount=270) it to justify the obvious fact that "arms" actually means "arms." That the prefatory clause outlines the reason for the operational clause, it is the "why" not the "what". It explains that an armed and well-trained populace is necessary to keep the state free. This clearly shows that the people are supposed to have access to the same arms as the government, which is of, by, and for the people.

Who is the populace supposed to be trained by? Wouldn't that mean any Jim Bob Bo Henry with a gun is supposed to receive training? If so by whom and what for?

Of course not. The Constitution doesn't say any such thing.

Until we do, the people have the legal right to any arms they please.

But they don't. Why is that? And IF they did...why aren't they fighting for that...since their rights have already been infringed?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 06:21 PM

Let's at least get the language right, or we have absolutely no chance of getting anything right.

Now that's a slippery slope. What you'll have is a long list of specific weapons, and invariably some idiot will include something that's contradictory just because of aesthetics or something.

That will have to be discussed. Like our President asked, are we not going to try because the politics are too hard?

Or the opposition is too vocal?

;)

Harmonium

01-21-2013, 06:25 PM

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/397718_562741423755104_1600461526_n.png

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 06:26 PM

Who is the populace supposed to be trained by? Wouldn't that mean any Jim Bob Bo Henry with a gun is supposed to receive training? If so by whom and what for?
Who cares? It's doesn't mandate training.

But they don't. Why is that?
Congress probably doesn't because they know it wouldn't fly. They need a supermajority for ratification.

And IF they did...why aren't they fighting for that...since their rights have already been infringed?
Citizens probably don't because many simply and rightly ignore such infringements as void ab initio.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 06:36 PM

Might interest you to know that I'm a volunteer with AmeriCorps, I'm an old fart that doesn't have to work anymore, and that I'm a decorated vet.
Sigh, it is because of this I am going to respond to this post though I feel like I am going in circles. I can not thank you enough for your service.

I asked you where the problems were...sources, methodology, what? You said you didn't have time to look at it and you never refuted anything in the study with anything other than your own personal opinion.

I have many posts about the multiple issues I have on the primary statistic that is cited from that study: the number of mass shootings have been 0 since the gun ban. First problem I have with it is the metric is flawed. As Vel, me and others have pointed out that overall violent crime rates have gone up which this metric does not show/illustrate/or even consider while overall violent crime rates does include mass shootings. This constriction of data shown is generally used to manipulate statistics to further an agenda. Also, since mass shootings seem to happen spuriously, it is not a reliable, ongoing occurrence that can be measured from year to year which makes it a weak metric.

Second problem I have is their definition of mass shooting. The study defines a mass shooting as any incident involving a gun where 5 die by gun shot. It does not consider the amount of people injured and does so for the clear purpose to dismiss other shootings. If you do not consider 20 injured by gun shot and 4 dead a mass shooting, then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that they only consider the number of deaths and used a generally higher number than the rest of the world (UN and US use 4 for example) illustrate further tampering of the statistics to further a clear goal.

Third problem I have is that the sample size is very small and its cut off point is in a very biased position. Cutting off at one of the largest mass shootings in history is biased and will skew the statistics. As discussed before, the occurrence of mass shootings is a spontaneous anomaly in societal statistics, thus using a small sample size, you can accent your point unfairly. For example, consider for the years 1990-2000 cattle were fed X and for the years 2000-2010 they were fed Y. During 1990-1996 cattle had an average weight of 750kg, for the years 1996-2000 they weighed on average 700kg, and for 2000-2010 they averaged 725kg. I could say that feed Y is better since from 1996-2000 the cows weighed 25kg less, but that would be manipulating the sample size and is thus of little integrity. The Australian survey you posted does that since during 1987-1996 Australia had one of the highest frequencies of mass shootings in their history by their metric.

These three problems, which are the glaring problems with that statistic, are not my opinion, but common statistical tricks that many politicians and businesses use. I would also like to say that just because it is from a university does not make a study scientific nor does it make it accurate. A professional analyst's report is actually a more credible source than an academic survey in most cases.

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have. This is a personal attack...not a refutation of anything.
You are right. They were personal attacks and were never intended to be anything more.

No one has crushed anything, lol. If anything we've come to understand that the Constitutional argument can support your position as well as mine...and is why I stated the courts need to clarify it, because the Constitution doesn't.
I have refuted many claims of yours. Crushed might have been a too strong of term, but when a rebuttal is largely ignored, then it is generally regarded as successful on the internet. Unless the person who is having the debate is "trolling" which is a whole other subject.

It was a real scientific study. You said it was hogwash and sounded funny...I asked you where the problems were. Statistics, methodology...what? That was a real scientific study done by the University of Sydney...not some off-the-cuff news story from the Examiner.

It was not a scientific study. You and I probably have two vastly different definitions of 'scientific,' but the paper was a sociological analysis of statistical trends in Australia with a focus on gun control. For the problems I had with the one major statistic that has been quoted from that survey see above.

Also, while the University of Sydney is a fine school, it is by no means so prestigious to be placed on any sort of pedestal. If it made top 20 in the THE rankings, then maybe, but I believe it is ranked as 4th out of Australia as a whole. I know Melbourne is more prestigious and I am pretty sure ANU is the best ranked Australian University by far.

Because you'd rather argue opinion. You don't have time to learn anything...and I'll tell you something. You CAN'T refute that study with anything other than opinion. You're not capable of it. Val should probably take a look at it...we might be able to get some intelligent discourse on the subject then.

The funny thing is that we are both arguing our opinions on the solution to an agreed upon problem. Both are 'solutions' and both have merits. We are actually arguing on which one has the highest probability of being the most effective solution while considering the consequences of enacting our solutions. I also have plenty of time to learn things and do so frequently. My current occupation is learning things and finding things that people have no learned yet(grad school). I can refute that study. I can attack their samplings, their metrics, their deviation of error, its relevance to the USA, etc. It has been done. This study is by no means some giant fact bomb and I really wish you wouldn't treat it as such. Val already looked at it and said what she thought on it. You might have missed it.

Believe what? That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?
I have never argued that the Constitution is open for interpretation. I also never argued against changing our interpretation of the Constitution as society progressed. My favorite thing about the Constitution is that it is subject to change as society changes. What my comment was in reference to was:
When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.
The logical is, and I am sorry for being so blunt, narcissistic. You assert that I need to have a clear cut definition with detailed specifics throughout of a term that was purposely left vague. If I am unable to, then your stance is right. This statement misplaces the onus which means you basically said "I am right and I don't need to prove I am right. You have to prove me wrong."

You seem to have become very angry lately.

or in internetese...

umad.
Nah, not angry nor mad. When I go on ad hominem, I generally come off as more aggressive. It takes a lot more than arguing over the internet to get me angry.

Again, thank you for your service.

Goofier

01-21-2013, 06:53 PM

Now that's a slippery slope. What you'll have is a long list of specific weapons, and invariably some idiot will include something that's contradictory just because of aesthetics or something.

That will have to be discussed. Like our President asked, are we not going to try because the politics are too hard?

Or the opposition is too vocal?

;)

We're going to try to get people to understand that it's NOT the politics of GUNS.
It's the whackjobs that need to be stopped, and all the political-oriented crap is just that - crap.

That's Washington brainwashing you again. It's not politics, it's not a two-party system, it's not even a party system, they just use that to keep you distracted from them not doing their jobs.

Again, it's not the guns, it's the nuts.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 08:47 PM

And I say it's the nuts with access to guns that make it easy to kill a lot of other people really fast.

Believing that it's everything except guns is also a brainwash.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 08:59 PM

Believing that it's everything except guns is also a brainwash.
Maybe all the stuffing of straw into imaginary men is what is tiring you out.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 09:03 PM

I could say the same thing about you guys, lol.

I don't believe I've misrepresented your positions, however. If you're going to use a fallacy error pick the right one.

Just sayin~

:)

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 09:13 PM

Someone actually said that everything except guns make it easy to kill a lot of other people really fast?

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 09:14 PM

And where did I put up straw men?

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:20 PM

I could say the same thing about you guys, lol.
I don't believe you can, but you can try I suppose.

I don't believe I've misrepresented your positions

I think you largely ignore the positions over misrepresenting them. Many rogue gunmen are put down before a tragedy occurs by armed citizens. The ones that become tragedies do not have armed citizens there. That is a fact. Despite that, you still drink the punch and assert that guns are the problem.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 09:25 PM

What I did might be similar to equivocation, but certainly not straw man.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 09:26 PM

I don't believe you can, but you can try I suppose.

I think you largely ignore the positions over misrepresenting them. Many rogue gunmen are put down before a tragedy occurs by armed citizens. The ones that become tragedies do not have armed citizens there. That is a fact. Despite that, you still drink the punch and assert that guns are the problem.

No, I assert certain types of guns are part of the problem.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:30 PM

No, I assert certain types of guns are part of the problem.

okay, why?

Humerox

01-21-2013, 09:42 PM

I'm done. just wanted to make sure my position was clear...that's all.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 09:46 PM

What I did might be similar to equivocation, but certainly not straw man.
Someone actually said that everything except guns make it easy to kill a lot of other people really fast?

Lexical

01-21-2013, 09:49 PM

I'm done. just wanted to make sure my position was clear...that's all.

Your position was clear, just not well supported.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:14 PM

*sigh*

Using similarly word structure in presenting my position is not a misrepresentation of his position.

It's word-play, not straw man.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 10:40 PM

If nobody actually said it, it's the very definition of a straw man.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:42 PM

If I said HE said it, it would be a straw man.

I didn't say HE said it. I didn't say that was HIS position.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 10:47 PM

I think we should all kiss and make up before I start making gun based sexual innuendo.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 10:48 PM

Or better yet...if I changed or misrepresented something he said and attacked it...that would be a straw man.

I used what he said to clarify my own position...not attack his. There IS a difference.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 10:52 PM

False. If it was unsaid by anyone, it's a straw man - a man that doesn't actually exist in the flesh.

Neckbeard

01-21-2013, 10:52 PM

You liberals will never steal our freedom
Damn right, death to the liberals! Death to communism! Long live social conservatives and economic moderates! LONG LIVE AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE QUEERS

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 10:52 PM

If I said HE said it, it would be a straw man.
False. If it was unsaid by anyone, it's a straw man - a man that doesn't actually exist in the flesh.

Neckbeard

01-21-2013, 10:55 PM

fixed for other side of the aisle

you my friend are a son of a bitch

Lexical

01-21-2013, 10:57 PM

Ephirith is a sexy son of a bitch

Neckbeard

01-21-2013, 11:01 PM

not to mention cocksucker

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:07 PM

I wonder if I could have a more intelligent debate on facebook.

Humerox

01-21-2013, 11:10 PM

It was said by someone. Me

Here's a straw man.

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed

Here's what happened.

Again, it's not the guns, it's the nuts.

And I say it's the nuts with access to guns that make it easy to kill a lot of other people really fast.

I can see where you'd make that jump...but what I did is not a straw man because I never changed his position and then attacked the altered position.

It may be difficult to understand the difference between a straw man and what I did...but keep at it.

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:14 PM

I know my gun has some nuts always hanging around.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 11:15 PM

I wasn't referring to that line. (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=821132&postcount=393)

Humerox

01-21-2013, 11:21 PM

His position was that it's not the guns, it's the nuts.

Saying that he believes it's everything except guns changes his position how?

Lexical

01-21-2013, 11:22 PM

Those damn nuts always grabbing on to a man's gun. No respect.

Vellatri

01-21-2013, 11:48 PM

Easy. The "it" he was referring to is "what needs to be stopped." Saying "nuts, not guns, need to be stopped" is not the same as saying "everything but guns need to be stopped."

Humerox

01-22-2013, 08:07 AM

Autotune

01-22-2013, 08:10 AM

But that was my argument. Not his.

I used a convulated his argument in making mine...I didn't change his position one bit.

A straw man requires that I change his position and attack a position that he never had.

I didn't do that.

Nope, you just made it seem like all nuts use guns to kill people and without guns those nuts wouldn't kill people.

Just as retarded.

Humerox

01-22-2013, 08:17 AM

Morning, bro.

I think it's not retarded, but that's me.

Grabbing coffee and heading out...have a great day! :)

Autotune

01-22-2013, 08:33 AM

Morning, bro.

I think it's not retarded, but that's me.

Grabbing coffee and heading out...have a great day! :)

Morning.

I think it is pretty retarded to assume without certain types of guns that homicidal people will not (be able to) commit mass homicides.

Billbike

01-22-2013, 09:39 AM

Glad I got into collecting weaponry before the few ruined it for the many. Last summer I spent around 3500.00 total on :

Stag Arms model 3 plus (AR15)
Arsenal Inc SLR106 (5.56 version of a AK74)
Century Converted Saiga 7.62x39 (AKM)
Glock 17(9mm)
Ruger 10/22 ITAC Talo edition(22LR)

And atleast 7-10 high capacity magazines for each. (the evil 30+ rounders that slay innocent people)
Right now this list would cost 7500.00 to 10k. The ban will increase their value 10 fold atleast.

Ban is dumb btw.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 09:58 AM

Saying that he believes it's everything except guns changes his position how?
I used a convulated his argument in making mine
So which is it?

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:13 AM

Which is what?

Show me where I changed his position then attacked that position.

You're having an awfully hard time understanding what a straw man is.

A straw man would be replacing his position with a position he never took...then attacking that changed position.

Rewording his position to make my own isn't straw man...his position remains clear against the context of mine.

Derp.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:21 AM

Saying that he believes it's everything except guns
He never said any such thing, and yet you admit to saying he did. Simple.

Goofier

01-22-2013, 10:31 AM

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:36 AM

He never said any such thing, and yet you admit to saying he did. Simple.

OK..if he states he believes guns actually have something to do with it.

Otherwise...I didn't misrepresent his position.

Lexical

01-22-2013, 10:39 AM

I don't even know what this thread is about any more.

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:41 AM

Well now it's just stubborn people arguing for the sake of argument.

That includes me.

Lexical

01-22-2013, 10:42 AM

I know.

Goofier

01-22-2013, 10:45 AM

Well now it's just stubborn people arguing for the sake of argument.

That includes me.

Nah, I like to call it social exercise.
This is important stuff, here.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:46 AM

Easy. The "it" he was referring to is "what needs to be stopped." Saying "nuts, not guns, need to be stopped" is not the same as saying "everything but guns need to be stopped."

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 10:47 AM

Oops. Must have mucked the formatting again. Preview FTL.

OK..if he states he believes guns actually have something to do with it.

Otherwise...I didn't misrepresent his position.
Which brings us back to:
Saying "nuts, not guns, need to be stopped" is not the same as saying "everything but guns need to be stopped."

Humerox

01-22-2013, 10:55 AM

OK

If he says that the type of guns used has contributed to mass shootings (because that's the context of what we were discussing) I'll say I misrepresented his position.

I think I understood his position to mean it was the nuts behind the guns, and that the guns are merely tools.

What I said didn't change his position. What I said contradicted his position.

You straw man fairly well for not understanding what it is.

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 11:41 AM

Of course what you said changed his position. To claim it is not one thing is not to claim that it is everything else.

Humerox

01-22-2013, 05:39 PM

straw man

an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument;

he "knocks down" the straw man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc.)

-- and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument.

I didn't do that.

At best I made a fail attempt to be witty. :)

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 05:49 PM

Sure you did. "Everything but X" is a close imitation of, but not the same as "not X."

Humerox

01-22-2013, 06:03 PM

Then you and I understand straw man arguments differently.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgK0H950ql_kDa0k0DHoWN2NG5_yJre S4AVe32VTX49f9Ah2NFVB_J2555

Vellatri

01-22-2013, 06:07 PM

Of course you understand them differently, because you do not understand them correctly.

Raavak

01-24-2013, 01:09 PM

Feinstein bringing her anti assault rifle bill out today.

At the same time the coroner reports there was assault rifle used at Sandy Hook.

Raavak

01-24-2013, 01:10 PM

Feinstein bringing her anti assault rifle bill out today.

At the same time the coroner reports there was NO assault rifle used at Sandy Hook.

Sorry forgot a word critical to the statement's meaning.

Autotune

01-24-2013, 01:44 PM

Where is this mysterious coroner report at? Every time I search, i get a stupid fucking video from december 15th and no fucking coroner report.

patriot1776

01-24-2013, 07:34 PM

are we still debating that liberal media lie?

patriot1776

01-24-2013, 07:58 PM

http://i.imgur.com/CwQHbOU.gif

patriot1776

01-28-2013, 05:47 PM

http://i.imgur.com/tm6Pz5y.jpg

patriot1776

01-28-2013, 05:48 PM

http://i.imgur.com/KQKhL4L.gif

Mortiiss

01-28-2013, 07:33 PM

Agree with the past 3 pics posted.

OforOppression

01-29-2013, 03:58 AM

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/530582_368303833268222_389182885_n.jpg

Harmonium

01-29-2013, 06:00 PM

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/295416_459300547457449_1275749191_n.jpg

Arrisard

01-29-2013, 06:34 PM

http://i.imgur.com/yEFVNrA.jpg

Harmonium

01-29-2013, 06:54 PM

Lexical

01-29-2013, 07:01 PM

This thread is back I see
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0hmp2k0891r9x0sdo1_500.gif

Harmonium

01-29-2013, 07:44 PM

"First of all, he [Obama] is a black. And as a black person being the president of the United States, that is something they still cannot get over"

Addressed to the NRA concerning gun control legislation
Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA)

Whenever the POTUS doesn't get his way, someone pulls the race card lol.

Autotune

01-29-2013, 07:49 PM

Harmonium

01-29-2013, 11:35 PM

He's not a black, he's more like a gray.

dude finally.. someone else who thinks he's an alien!

gotrocks

01-30-2013, 12:29 AM

This thread is back I see
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0hmp2k0891r9x0sdo1_500.gif

Hailto

01-30-2013, 12:58 AM

Harmonium confirmed great american and patriot.

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 02:20 AM

http://i.imgur.com/LrPwbFW.png

Alawen

01-30-2013, 07:54 AM

We'll never know what happened when Naez finally puts a bullet in his own head.

Goofier

01-30-2013, 08:49 AM

Only did a cursory check, but best I could find, actually in-stock, $75 for 3 AR mags.

Vellatri

01-30-2013, 10:26 AM

This thread is back I see
Nah. Just people having fun at the expense of antis now that they've proven to be liars (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=821726&postcount=458).

Alawen

01-30-2013, 11:17 AM

The most current theories on recent decreases in violence involve a strong lagging correlation with the removal of lead from gasoline.

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 12:50 PM

We'll never know what happened when Naez finally puts a bullet in his own head.

Unlike you nihilistic atheist communists, I find value in life

OforOppression

01-30-2013, 12:53 PM

Until you hit the bottom of a 40 and turn into pol pot

Alawen

01-30-2013, 01:27 PM

Unlike you nihilistic atheist communists, I find value in life

That would make an excellent suicide note.

Autotune

01-30-2013, 01:36 PM

Unlike you nihilistic atheist communists, I find value in life

So did people who owned slaves.

Lexical

01-30-2013, 01:50 PM

So did people who owned slaves.

ZING!

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 03:15 PM

So did people who owned slaves.

No one cares about ancient history.

not sure where random suicidal troll comes from, but I guess when you have no leg to stand on all you can do is make shit up

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 03:23 PM

Oh yea constitution cited daily by judges and presidents etc slavery ain't been here for like 420 generations

Also who would use a gun for suicide painful Id rather OD on something fun

Goofier

01-30-2013, 03:48 PM

No one cares about ancient history.

I'll have to disagree on that, lots of people out there ready to kill and die for the Bible or the Quran. Kind of ancient. More ancient than slavery.

Autotune

01-30-2013, 03:50 PM

No one cares about ancient history.

not sure where random suicidal troll comes from, but I guess when you have no leg to stand on all you can do is make shit up

no one cares about 1776 and ancient history, but I guess when you have no leg to stand on, all you can do is use an avatar of someone from ancient history as well as his name.

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 03:55 PM

Have you given up trying?

also biblical texts aren't ancient history it is read daily just as the constitution is. when's the last time you read a for sale slave ad in the paper?

Autotune

01-30-2013, 03:57 PM

Have you given up trying?

also biblical texts aren't ancient history it is read daily just as the constitution is. when's the last time you read a for sale slave ad in the paper?

People talk about slavery every day, people don't practice slavery every day.
People talk about the bible every day, people don't practice miracles every day.

Stfu and at least stay fucking consistent.

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 04:01 PM

That is straw man to my premise please to to community college

Autotune

01-30-2013, 04:04 PM

That is straw man to my premise please to to community college

no it isn't.

Autotune

01-30-2013, 04:05 PM

Reading and Discussing, both done in the present and both keep topic relevant.

Umad.

Goofier

01-30-2013, 04:20 PM

Have you given up trying?

also biblical texts aren't ancient history it is read daily just as the constitution is. when's the last time you read a for sale slave ad in the paper?

Well, biblical text says it's okay to take slaves, as was the practice back then...
Is that not ancient history?
More ancient than slavery in the US?

gotrocks

01-30-2013, 04:49 PM

Slavery happens all the time, everday, everywhere. Even in the U.S.

Seattle is known to be one of the biggest slave ports in the world, bringing in tens of thousands of slaves each month.

Not sure how this is relevant to this discussion, but slavery is indeed still relevant and happens all the time.

Andrew Jackson

01-30-2013, 04:57 PM

Naw naw