I know it would neat to go back in time and see how people used to live before this country was so well-established, but time travel isn’t really possible!
On a serious note, you’ll take an economics class, I hope. And a history class, and a philosophy class would be nice. But that wouldn’t leave you much time to post in the politics forum, so who knows?
@ sloth, by the way.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Except that my previous post makes a grand total of one (1) post I’ve made about the subject.
Good, if you don’t feel passionate about the Bill of Rights, feel free to not post.
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
BS. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the government’s commitment to abide by all the others.
[/quote]
Haha! I was hoping this would come up. If you actually think your AR-15, or your Glock with extended pre-ban magazine, or your Benelli tactical shotgun are going to do shit to help you if the government actually came to get you, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time.
This kind of stupid 10-year-old macho bullshit is why I’m embarrassed to come out for concealed-carry and similar pro-gun laws in discussions.
I think I’m going to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by shooting Republicans.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
[/quote]
Case in point.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Except that my previous post makes a grand total of one (1) post I’ve made about the subject.
Good, if you don’t feel passionate about the Bill of Rights, feel free to not post.
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
BS. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the government’s commitment to abide by all the others.
Haha! I was hoping this would come up. If you actually think your AR-15, or your Glock with extended pre-ban magazine, or your Benelli tactical shotgun are going to do shit to help you if the government actually came to get you, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time.
[/quote]
Seems to work for the Iraqis.
People who resist arrest from the police get caught 90% of them time. If we actually did have some authoritarian in charge who started using the military to round people up, they would get you, one way or another.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
Case in point.[/quote]
True, you are a good example.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Haha! I was hoping this would come up…
This kind of stupid 10-year-old macho bullshit is why I’m embarrassed to come out for concealed-carry and similar pro-gun laws in discussions.
I think I’m going to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by shooting Republicans.
[/quote]
Talk about the pot calling the kettle cookware.
It’s for the good of the country. There, that argument always works for you as an excuse to exercise force.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
It’s for the good of the country. There, that argument always works for you as an excuse to exercise force.[/quote]
If you can’t tell the difference between murder and self defense, you have no business carrying a gun. And you appear to not understand the other nine Amendments. Maybe you don’t have a habit of posting in these threads because you don’t have a very strong understanding of the Constitution.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it would neat to go back in time and see how people used to live before this country was so well-established, but time travel isn’t really possible!
On a serious note, you’ll take an economics class, I hope. And a history class, and a philosophy class would be nice. But that wouldn’t leave you much time to post in the politics forum, so who knows?
@ sloth, by the way.[/quote]
You could’ve made it brief by just saying “Nah, we don’t intend to reassemble the shredded Constitution. I was just pulling your chain!.”
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between murder and self defense, you have no business carrying a gun. And you appear to not understand the other nine Amendments. Maybe you don’t have a habit of posting in these threads because you don’t have a very strong understanding of the Constitution.
[/quote]
Now you stop that. He’s “a student”, therefore knows everything because he got learned and is gonna graj-ee-ate.
The Bill of Rights exists in a way that each amendment protects the others.
Our right to firearms protects us from illegal search and seizure. Protection from illegal search and seizure allows us to express ourselves on our property however we wish.
Etc etc…
In my opinion, the bill of rights is like chain mail. One kink and the citizens can be easily penetrated.
To be honest, if I had to pick a “most important” amendment, it’d have to be the tenth.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
On the pro-gun side, there’s a new freak-out thread every day about how “Obama’s gunna take yer gunz! I’m gunna shoot at 'em when they come!” and other pathetic macho shit.
I don’t know where they get the idea that Obama gives a shit about their guns with the economy in the toilet, an energy crisis looming, Iran possibly building a bomb, etc. I guarantee he hasn’t bestowed a single second’s thought on gun legislation. [/quote]
Ryan, the fact that this bill exists is indisputable. That the President will sign it if it ever reaches his desk is extremely likely. That it will make it to the President’s desk is quite probable.
You may not believe that the people of this country have the right to own military weapons, or any weapons, or even to defend themselves at all. Whether you believe in these rights or not is entirely irrelevant. They exist. They predate the Constitution.
Should this bill ever become law, the rights of the people to protect themselves from what potentially could be its deadliest enemy will be irrevocably diminished.
You spoke of history; you might study a little yourself. You may discover two interesting parallels among some of the more atrocious totalitarian genocides of the previous century. I’m speaking of the extermination campaigns carried out by the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and Rwanda.
The first parallel is that in every case, the government systematically targeted and eliminated its political enemies. Yes, the Nazis and Turks targeted rival ethnic groups, and in Africa rival tribes, but at the heart of it was that the ruling party wanted to silence the opposition, permanently.
The other, more relevant parallel is that shortly before every pogrom, the government enacted legislation to disarm the group it planned to attack.
In every case, it began with a ban, followed by registration, followed by voluntary surrender of arms, followed by house-to-house police searches and confiscation. The death squads came soon after.
You say that an armed citizen has no chance against a rapacious government. I say that he has a far better chance than an unarmed subject would.
I also say that you miss the point that it is precisely the armed citizen that keeps the rapacity of the government to a minimum.
It all boils down to trust. The government that trusts me is worthy of my trust. The opposite is also true.
As long as a military rifle is legally in my hands, I feel fairly confident that I will never have occasion to use it. If I’m ever considered a criminal by the mere fact of my owning it, I’ll know I was right to have it in the first place.
That’s what we’re discussing here.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
[/quote]
This is what I was getting at. The old saying is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the others.
Hey Blacksnake:
I think your Minuteman needs an M14. 
I prefer to carry an M4, just like Jesus.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
The Bill of Rights exists in a way that each amendment protects the others.
Our right to firearms protects us from illegal search and seizure. Protection from illegal search and seizure allows us to express ourselves on our property however we wish.
Etc etc…
In my opinion, the bill of rights is like chain mail. One kink and the citizens can be easily penetrated.
To be honest, if I had to pick a “most important” amendment, it’d have to be the tenth.
Interesting and understandable choice; incidentally the first Amendment to be so casually discarded and ignored a very long time ago and to this day.[/quote]
I agree to a point. The elastic clause allows for some Constitutional “breakage” of the tenth. It allows us to draw a line in the sand.
I (and probably you) just think that line should’ve been drawn in a stricter sense.