assholes and laws

[HAOLE]

I think you are inadequate and ineffective.

 

ARGUE LIKE A FUCKING HUMAN!

:funny:

[HAOLE]

Egypt, Venezuela, India, Portugal...I can go on.

I said successful, not have come close to the USA. BTW take oil away form Venezuela and see how socialist they are.That is most likely the largest source of income to fund the government and its programs

Agreed. The problem is the influence that large corporations have over the government. Our legislative system represents those who can pay for influence, and to me, that is not the majority of the people. Our laws on monopolies are representative of socialist ideals. Another problem is the idiotic welfare system we have that puts people off of social funding. I think a welfare system is necessary, and I think ours is inadequate and ineffective.

 

Welfare is only needed for those who are mentally incapable of working. Sometimes that is a stretch too. Being in a wheelchair, on crutches or what ever contraption you devise does not alleviate you of your personal responsibility to provide for yourself.

 

The only reason ours is inadequate, it does not kick enough people off the rolls.

 

Before you say it, I am in favor of old people and children starving.

[TheHaze]

While I agree a capitalistic society would help a nation contribute its maximum output in this world, I think it sucks that politicians can benefit so well. Yes, we all will chase a dollar, but unfortunately so do "our" governents' officials.

 

 

 

On this topic: despite literary meanings and whatnot and historical proof of the 2nd amendment, I think, realistically, a ban on guns cannot truly happen. Imagine if such a law was passed banning such a freedom: how can so many gun owners be really regulated? Think about it, if someone is going to kill someone, they're obviously already contemplating committing a crime in itself. How many deaths occur a year by unregistered guns already? People will keep their guns. Guns aren't the problem anyway, atleast in my mind.

[Science Abuse]

just waiting for you to cut and run again...

Waiting for your rebuttal.

[HAOLE]

 

If the need for the general population's help in defending the free state dissapears (like, ohh, I dunno, The Militia Act of 1903 organizes the state militias into the National Guard system), then the need for the people to bear arms also disapears.

 

I disagree.... The need to bear arms is to prevent tyranny. I would assume most governments start out with good intentions, but they can evolve into tyrannical governments if left unchecked. The framers of the constitution knew this. The true meaning of the constitution can only be understood in the context of when it was written.

 

The idea of the national guard taking the place of the peoples right to bear arms is not good. The national guard, even though a state system, is partially controlled by the federal government.

 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

-George Mason "father of the Bill of Rights"

 

What you want Amend-2 to say is "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

I dont want it to say anything it does not already say. Look at the meaning through the authors eyes, not your own.

 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

 

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

 

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

 

-Patrick Henry.

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

 

-Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 

 

 

Imagine if your interpretation of laws applied across the board:

"Tresspassing without your permission is forbidden, you are permitted to beat the hell out of people that do it."

OMG I'm alowed to beat people everywhere?

 

"that do it" makes treference to the first idea in the sentence. Nice try though!

[Science Abuse]

"...in the context of those who wrote it..."

Those quotes of yours are 200 years old. However, I realy like this one, which sums up my real stance (not my internet arguing stance) on fire arms:

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

Psycology didn't exist back then, it does now. Ones record is not an indicator of what they will do in the future. Gun ownership should not be easy, and to get one you must submit to a mental evaluation.

 

You have to be 18 to rent a canoe, but at 14 they'll let you tear 'round the woods with a high powered rifle.

Park Ranger, Huron Manistee Nat'l forest. Guns shouldn't be banned, they should just be harder to get.

 

I disagree.... The need to bear arms is to prevent tyranny.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison

[HAOLE]

"...in the context of those who wrote it..."

Those quotes of yours are 200 years old. However, I realy like this one, which sums up my real stance (not my internet arguing stance) on fire arms:

 

Psycology didn't exist back then, it does now. Ones record is not an indicator of what they will do in the future. Gun ownership should not be easy, and to get one you must submit to a mental evaluation.

 

 

Park Ranger, Huron Manistee Nat'l forest. Guns shouldn't be banned, they should just be harder to get.

 

 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison

Please tell me you are not serious

 

The constitution is over 200 years but it is not irrelevant.

 

You cannot own a gun unless you are 18 for a long gun, 21 for a hand gun.You may be able to use under 18, but you cant own them.

 

 

Psycology didn't exist back then, it does now. Ones record is not an indicator of what they will do in the future. Gun ownership should not be easy, and to get one you must submit to a mental evaluation.

No guns for you

[Science Abuse]

I didn't say it was irrelevant. You brought up context, and times were much different back then. There is a reason that they designed the Constitution to be amendable. They recognized that their rules would not always make sense.

 

No guns for you

Dont need, don't want. Although, I have been to a range or two and will acknowlege that it's a good time.

[El Karacho1647545492]

this is hands down one of the most intelligent and well thought out political debate threads in CR's history.

[TheHaze]

Gun ownership should not be easy, and to get one you must submit to a mental evaluation.

My thoughts exactly.

[copperhead]

You have to be 18 to rent a canoe, but at 14 they'll let you tear 'round the woods with a high powered rifle.

 

I've known 14 year olds that are safer with a gun in their hands than most adults. It's all about what that person was taught before they were allowed to pick up that gun. Generally, a kid that has been out hunting with his dad since he was young will have been properly taught the safety rules for firearm handling, whereas Joe Blow in Bigcitymetropolis thinks he needs a Glock in case someone breaks in, then shoots himself in the leg when he goes to clean the gun because he didn't properly clear it first.

 

Joe Blow didn't shoot himself because he is mentally unstable, but rather because he didn't have proper teaching of the safety rules.

 

Now, lets address the topic of "assault weapons." Right now, congress has in the works another ban, only this time it will be much further reaching and without an expiration date. What will this accomplish? Making guns that I find fun to shoot, and more and more people are starting to hunt with and compete with, a little bit harder and much more expensive to buy. Will it reduce crime? No, but I'm sure it will make the world a little less scary to a small group of people that have probably never even been the victims of crime in which an "assault weapon" was used. But that's a whole different story about mental instability and baseless emotions.

 

Per the ATF, the top five most used weapons in crime are:

#5 - Glock .40

#4 - Hi-Point 9mm

#3 - Bryco 9mm

#2 - S&W .40

#1 - Lorcin 9mm

 

First off, notice how those are all handguns. No OMG scary evil black machine guns there, sorry.

 

The next thing that I would like to point out, is that the Hi-Point, Bryco, and Lorcin guns are $100 (or less) brand new from the dealer, throwaway guns. The S&W and Glock are still under $500 and easy to get. Doesn't surprise me in the least to see the Glock there, what with every rapper spouting off about shooting people wit der glock fotey. Those are some great people to look up to.

 

Now, whats the point in regulated the majority who commit no crimes, when it makes little to no impact on the few who do commit crimes? That's like saying you have to take the CDL test to drive a honda, then limit the number of cars that can be sold in the US to deter DUI's. Does it make sense? Fuck no, neither does all of the wacky shit the Brady Bunch are trying to push through congress.

 

I read that someone in NY had the brilliant idea of serializing ammo. To pull this off, they would need a giant database. For example, I can easily go through 500 rounds at the indoor range, and a couple thousand when I'm on private property outside. Second, if I want to completely get around this as a way of getting caught for murder, I'll go to a shooting range, pick up someone elses brass, and drop it at the crime scene, and use a revolver so that my own brass goes with me. Great idea, lets go spend a couple million on this project

[TheHaze]

The way I see it, all guns should be legal BUT difficult to get with no increase in price. I'm just talking background checks and mental evaluations, maybe only in higher crime-rate areas. I think it would deter people in the first place from getting one if it will take so much effort.

 

 

It's like a more advanced driving test: Look how many lunatics are on the road and how many accidents there are. Think how many would be eliminated if we had better screening before handing out driver's licenses.

[Science Abuse]

What Mikehaze said x730732098. Ad to that a wait period. You don't need a gun "now". If you do think that you need a gun "NOW", then you probably shouldn't have one.

 

Per the ATF, the top five most used weapons in crime are:

#5 - Glock .40

#4 - Hi-Point 9mm

#3 - Bryco 9mm

#2 - S&W .40

#1 - Lorcin 9mm

If the best you can afford is a highpoint, you probably need to be robbin some bitches.

[copperhead]

I'm just talking background checks and mental evaluations, maybe only in higher crime-rate areas.

 

but but but thats racist!

[HAOLE]

 

If the best you can afford is a highpoint, you probably need to be robbin some bitches.

:funny:

[El Karacho1647545492]

It really doesn't matter what guns are used most in crimes. It matters what guns are NOT used in crimes at all. I wonder if there's ever been a gun, rifle, shotgun, or handgun, that has NEVER been used to do something illegal.

[HAOLE]

I wonder if there's ever been a gun, rifle, shotgun, or handgun, that has NEVER been used to do something illegal.

 

I wonder if there is any object that has not been used for illegal activity.

[Science Abuse]

It really doesn't matter what guns are used most in crimes. It matters what guns are NOT used in crimes at all. I wonder if there's ever been a gun, rifle, shotgun, or handgun, that has NEVER been used to do something illegal.

What was that early WWII French automatic rifle that got more soldiers killed then actually did killin'?......

[HAOLE]

What was that early WWII French automatic rifle that got more soldiers killed then actually did killin'?......

That was the Chauchat click

 

That was used during WWI.The gun jammed VERY badly!!!!!! The open sides of the mag was thought to be a good idea so the troops could see how much ammo was left. open sides = dirt in gun

[desperado]

hmmm, how has this turned into a discussion about the second amendment? What I read in the original post was about the ACLU and ultimately how that group of lawyers have twisted the meaning of the Constitution into something it doesn't specifically say and was NEVER meant to mean.

Take the freedom of religion. It says that government shall make no law that puts any religion before another, or show preference to a specific religion. I don't know that they have done so. Can anyone show me where there is a law on the books that says that it's better to be Christian that Jewish? How about the one that says that it's illegal to be Hindu? I haven't seen them, chances are that you haven't either. The ACLU turns this into something else, arguing that putting the word God on money is somehow wrong. Oddly enough, the ones that argue that it shouldn't be there are self proclaimed Athiest's, which is a religion by the truest sense of the word. And the odd thing is that they don't believe in God at all. Well, I don't know that I do myself, I really do question the whole higher power thing, and think it's about as real as the Easter bunny or that some fat bastard drives 8 reindeer all over the world and hands out toys that are made by little midgets. But my take on it is this, we are free to believe what ever we want and need to respect that and the majority. If that is the belief of the majority then let them have it. Their beliefs are not hurting me, and don't effect me in any way. Every Christmas I take my kid to see some guy in a red suit that stinks of gin, stares at the asses of the 18 yr old female 'helpers' in their green spandex. Why? Because it makes him happy and it doesn't hurt him any more than any other kid when he gets to the age that they find out the truth about the guy in the red suit.

 

Truth is that the ACLU is not about the majority, which is what this whole system is suppose to be based on. It jumps in the corner of the 5 assholes that seem to want to ruin it for the lot of us by twisting shit.

Somewhere there is a line. Where does it exist? When they ban the Christmas parade because it's held on a public street? Is it when the chruches are no longer allowed to display a cross or the Jewish candle holder for the 12 days outside their place of worship? (Sorry Anthony I don't know what that's called.) How about they start marching anyone off to jail that where's a Star of David or a cross around their neck, will it be enough at that point or will you stand quietly and allow the ACLU to wipe religion from the USA completely and turn the places of worship into parking lots and housing developments. These folks are no different than any other activist group. You all want to talk about the second amendment. Do you honestly believe that the anti-gun folks will stop with banning assault rifles? How about hand guns? They will keep going, it will be hunting rifles and shotgun's after that, and we will have nothing in the way of firearms. When they reach that goal, they will move on to archery equipment, then knives, 5 cell mag lights and anything else they feel could be a weapon. That is plain old human nature. Greed and satisfaction. The greed is wanting more and then the satisfaction of getting what they want.

[Mensan]

 

Words

 

 

Main Entry: 1tan·gent

Pronunciation: 'tan-j&nt

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin tangent-, tangens, present participle of tangere to touch; perhaps akin to Old English thaccian to touch gently, stroke

1 a : meeting a curve or surface in a single point if a sufficiently small interval is considered <straight line tangent to a curve> b (1) : having a common tangent line at a point <tangent curves> (2) : having a common tangent plane at a point <tangent surfaces>

2 : diverging from an original purpose or course : IRRELEVANT

[desperado]

:funny:

 

Gee Eli, I went back and read the original post, it was about a kid doing omething silly and the ACLU. Seems this thread has gone off on it's own tangent. Yeah, I can use them big words too. I know, you're a genius. Your screen name clearly spells it out how proud you are of your vast intellect and superior intelligence level. I know you feel that we should just shut up and bow when you speakand somehow feel blessed that you have shared your superior intelligence level with those of us that are beneath you.

 

Here's the thing, you can be realy fucking smart and still be wrong. Not only that, but you can be far superior and still have someone disagree with your opinion. Just because you passed the Mensa test doen't mean that your opinions are automatically transformed into facts.

 

So please, continue to pontificate oh wise one, us dumb ass rednecks will continue to laugh hysterically at your 'facts'.

[El Karacho1647545492]

hmmm, how has this turned into a discussion about the second amendment? What I read in the original post was about the ACLU and ultimately how that group of lawyers have twisted the meaning of the Constitution into something it doesn't specifically say and was NEVER meant to mean.

Take the freedom of religion. It says that government shall make no law that puts any religion before another, or show preference to a specific religion. I don't know that they have done so. Can anyone show me where there is a law on the books that says that it's better to be Christian that Jewish? How about the one that says that it's illegal to be Hindu? I haven't seen them, chances are that you haven't either. The ACLU turns this into something else, arguing that putting the word God on money is somehow wrong. Oddly enough, the ones that argue that it shouldn't be there are self proclaimed Athiest's, which is a religion by the truest sense of the word. And the odd thing is that they don't believe in God at all. Well, I don't know that I do myself, I really do question the whole higher power thing, and think it's about as real as the Easter bunny or that some fat bastard drives 8 reindeer all over the world and hands out toys that are made by little midgets. But my take on it is this, we are free to believe what ever we want and need to respect that and the majority. If that is the belief of the majority then let them have it. Their beliefs are not hurting me, and don't effect me in any way. Every Christmas I take my kid to see some guy in a red suit that stinks of gin, stares at the asses of the 18 yr old female 'helpers' in their green spandex. Why? Because it makes him happy and it doesn't hurt him any more than any other kid when he gets to the age that they find out the truth about the guy in the red suit.

 

Truth is that the ACLU is not about the majority, which is what this whole system is suppose to be based on. It jumps in the corner of the 5 assholes that seem to want to ruin it for the lot of us by twisting shit.

Somewhere there is a line. Where does it exist? When they ban the Christmas parade because it's held on a public street? Is it when the chruches are no longer allowed to display a cross or the Jewish candle holder for the 12 days outside their place of worship? (Sorry Anthony I don't know what that's called.) How about they start marching anyone off to jail that where's a Star of David or a cross around their neck, will it be enough at that point or will you stand quietly and allow the ACLU to wipe religion from the USA completely and turn the places of worship into parking lots and housing developments. These folks are no different than any other activist group. You all want to talk about the second amendment. Do you honestly believe that the anti-gun folks will stop with banning assault rifles? How about hand guns? They will keep going, it will be hunting rifles and shotgun's after that, and we will have nothing in the way of firearms. When they reach that goal, they will move on to archery equipment, then knives, 5 cell mag lights and anything else they feel could be a weapon. That is plain old human nature. Greed and satisfaction. The greed is wanting more and then the satisfaction of getting what they want.

lol i was waiting for this.

 

 

desperado, I love how whenever you post you put in one or two paragraph breaks to make it seem like you care for the average CR reader.

 

A+ rant lol:D

[HAOLE]

hmmm, how has this turned into a discussion about the second amendment? What I read in the original post was about the ACLU and ultimately how that group of lawyers have twisted the meaning of the Constitution into something it doesn't specifically say and was NEVER meant to mean.

Take the freedom of religion. It says that government shall make no law that puts any religion before another, or show preference to a specific religion. I don't know that they have done so. Can anyone show me where there is a law on the books that says that it's better to be Christian that Jewish? How about the one that says that it's illegal to be Hindu? I haven't seen them, chances are that you haven't either. The ACLU turns this into something else, arguing that putting the word God on money is somehow wrong. Oddly enough, the ones that argue that it shouldn't be there are self proclaimed Athiest's, which is a religion by the truest sense of the word. And the odd thing is that they don't believe in God at all. Well, I don't know that I do myself, I really do question the whole higher power thing, and think it's about as real as the Easter bunny or that some fat bastard drives 8 reindeer all over the world and hands out toys that are made by little midgets. But my take on it is this, we are free to believe what ever we want and need to respect that and the majority. If that is the belief of the majority then let them have it. Their beliefs are not hurting me, and don't effect me in any way. Every Christmas I take my kid to see some guy in a red suit that stinks of gin, stares at the asses of the 18 yr old female 'helpers' in their green spandex. Why? Because it makes him happy and it doesn't hurt him any more than any other kid when he gets to the age that they find out the truth about the guy in the red suit.

 

Truth is that the ACLU is not about the majority, which is what this whole system is suppose to be based on. It jumps in the corner of the 5 assholes that seem to want to ruin it for the lot of us by twisting shit.

Somewhere there is a line. Where does it exist? When they ban the Christmas parade because it's held on a public street? Is it when the chruches are no longer allowed to display a cross or the Jewish candle holder for the 12 days outside their place of worship? (Sorry Anthony I don't know what that's called.) How about they start marching anyone off to jail that where's a Star of David or a cross around their neck, will it be enough at that point or will you stand quietly and allow the ACLU to wipe religion from the USA completely and turn the places of worship into parking lots and housing developments. These folks are no different than any other activist group. You all want to talk about the second amendment. Do you honestly believe that the anti-gun folks will stop with banning assault rifles? How about hand guns? They will keep going, it will be hunting rifles and shotgun's after that, and we will have nothing in the way of firearms. When they reach that goal, they will move on to archery equipment, then knives, 5 cell mag lights and anything else they feel could be a weapon. That is plain old human nature. Greed and satisfaction. The greed is wanting more and then the satisfaction of getting what they want.

Nice rant!

[Mensan]

:funny:

 

Gee Eli, I went back and read the original post, it was about a kid doing omething silly and the ACLU. Seems this thread has gone off on it's own tangent. Yeah, I can use them big words too. I know, you're a genius. Your screen name clearly spells it out how proud you are of your vast intellect and superior intelligence level. I know you feel that we should just shut up and bow when you speakand somehow feel blessed that you have shared your superior intelligence level with those of us that are beneath you.

 

Here's the thing, you can be realy fucking smart and still be wrong. Not only that, but you can be far superior and still have someone disagree with your opinion. Just because you passed the Mensa test doen't mean that your opinions are automatically transformed into facts.

 

So please, continue to pontificate oh wise one, us dumb ass rednecks will continue to laugh hysterically at your 'facts'.

 

 

You took a political thread and somehow made it about the easter bunny. That's going off on a tangent in my book.

 

I love you Keith.