[quote]phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Nuclear Submarines? So you are still resorting to over the top histrionics. What is even worse is you point out the complete failure of gun control in Mexico and then present more of your histrionics in the form of a question.
Kind of besides the point but what is wrong with a private citizen owning a nuclear submarine? I hope he knows that a nuclear submarine isn’t a submarine with nukes :S
Of course I understand that terrorists could potentially make a bomb out of the nuclear material in the submarine; however if they could be constructed in a way that you didn’t use weapons grade material then there would be nothing wrong with owning a nuclear submarine.
I for one want a fucking nuclear submarine.[/quote]
I mean a nuke carrying sub like the trident, not a nuclear powered sub of course.
…We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/
It’s readily apparent that a lot of things don’t.
You’re either willfully blind or incredibly stupid. I really don’t think it’s the latter - to your credit, I guess.[/quote]
So do you feel that people should be able to drive on the roads without a license and with no testing or training? If not, why not?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu drooled:
When this country was founded we still had a frontier. People on the frontier were living on their own far away from any settlements. They had to be able to protect themselves from Injuns, brigands and wild animals. The need could arise without any warning at any time of the day and people would be armed 24/7.
Sifu also drooled:
You need to qualify that statement because you are making absolutely no sense. What does “they were living in a very different time” mean? Other than our modern technology what is different?
Way to answer your own question!
Then I will take it from your answer that you concede that I am right and that the worn out cliche of “times were very different then” is completely false.
[/quote]
So you can’t even follow your own arguments now? You talk about how different it was at the founding then ask me what the difference is.
[quote]
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.
What’s the matter Cock can’t you understand plain English? Bear means carry. And securing yourself in a state of freedom with firearms means that you can use them to defend yourself. It would make absolutely no sense to give the right to use firearms to secure your free state if you cannot use them.
To carry from one place to another; transport.
what about the other 13 definitions on that page. Anyway the point was about self defence which is not mentioned in the amendment.
Well I am quite certain that “bear arms” wasn’t refferring to the arms of a bear. The Supreme court ruled in the Heller case that the second amendment does grant a right to self defense so again you are wrong. [/quote]
No I am not wrong, it doesn’t say that the second amendment refers to self defence, it says that the second amendment doesn’t infringe on any pre existing rights to arms for self defence. That is subtly different. Also, they specifically state that there should be an allowance to restrict certain types of arms and arms to certain types of people.
There are also still a lot of far more erudite legal minds than mine in the US who feel that the case has actually created a federal constitutional right that didn’t previously exist.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/
It’s readily apparent that a lot of things don’t.
You’re either willfully blind or incredibly stupid. I really don’t think it’s the latter - to your credit, I guess.
So do you feel that people should be able to drive on the roads without a license and with no testing or training? If not, why not?
You honestly don’t understand the distinction or are you just HeadHunting?[/quote]
Can someone give me a quote from the founders, explaining that the right to keep and bear arms was meant for those approved by, and registered with, the government?
Edit: Honestly, I don’t understand how there’s still an argument after one of the parties conceded that the founders would say that a man had the right to K&BA (too lazy) in the defense of his property. That’s game over.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Can someone give me a quote from the founders, explaining that the right to keep and bear arms was meant for those approved by, and registered with, the government?
It’s gotta be out there somewhere. Cock and Froggie are so dadgum sure of themselves. And they REALLY, REALLY mean it when they say it so it must be true.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
…We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/
It’s readily apparent that a lot of things don’t.
You’re either willfully blind or incredibly stupid. I really don’t think it’s the latter - to your credit, I guess.
So do you feel that people should be able to drive on the roads without a license and with no testing or training? If not, why not?
You honestly don’t understand the distinction or are you just HeadHunting?
Why don’t you answer the question?
I’ll answer it with a question. Do you feel the timeless natural right of self-defense as well as the collective defense against a tyrannical state is directly akin to being able to drive an automobile?[/quote]
No, now answer my question. Do you think that a person should require training, testing and a license before driving a car on the roads?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can someone give me a quote from the founders, explaining that the right to keep and bear arms was meant for those approved by, and registered with, the government?
Edit: Honestly, I don’t understand how there’s still an argument after one of the parties conceded that the founders would say that a man had the right to K&BA (too lazy) in the defense of his property. That’s game over.[/quote]
The argument is whether they would still support that right in today’s world. Actually, the argument was whether the scout association in the UK has banned knives and this was answered by posting a document from the scout organisation stating no in about the 5th post. Does seem to have slightly gone off track since then.
What are you, the fuckin Question Czar? You dip your scepter and we here at TN are obligated to answer you but you will do likewise in your own good time?[/quote]
Bingo, now you have it, you and sifu have far more patience than me. Everything that Sifu has posted in re to England can be applied to Australia as well, we are going down the shit chute as well.
So what if there is cameras everywhere ? They don’t do bloody anything as no one is watching them ! Murder is UP in our country, convictions are DOWN. Hurrah !
And for the Gun laws HELL NO would i allow people guns in this country. USA is one of the most VIOLENT places on earth… ever stop and think it may be your GUN LAWS that are the problem ? NO-ONE should own a gun for gods sake, human behaviors is FAR to erratic at best, all it needs is one crazy excuse and BAM someones dead.
As for “Mufasa’s” Islamic law is coming in, the BNP will reach power in the next 10 years. Watch this post because it WILL happen. That or all out crazy riots, the amount of loonies we are letting into our country went out of control YEARS ago.
Time for Britain to get the hell out of Europe and tell everyone to pack your stuff and get the fuck out. And yes i despise Europe and everything to do with Europe.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I didn’t mean to insult you. But ask your self, why would someone want you to be disarmed? Where is the trust? Why be denied that power? Don’t you see how that diminishes you as a human being? Guns are the ultimate equalizers. If you think of them as an EQUALIZER and you’ll perhaps see that its good for the society. Fact is all statistics prove that crime is DIRECTLY proportional to gun prohibition. Gun prohibition give power and shifts the balance of power away from the people. [/quote]
WHAT ???
Put USA crime up against British crime… there is NO comparison.
Put your gun shootings up against our… NO comparison.
WHERE are you getting those fancifull ideas from ?
I wouldn’t trust my best mate with a gun nevermind most of the dumbfucks on welfare who would have access to them in your dreamworld. FUCK NO unless you do an IQ test 1st.
You put all your high school shootings together… why do you think they happen ??
Hormonal teenagers with some f*cked up reasoning decide “people must die” and they have EASY fucking access to a MEANS TO DO IT.
HOW in gods fucking name do you LOGICALLY think this is “OK” i love the US, i have been there twice, my brothers are in the Marines (British) served in the 2 wars we helped ye with. But fucking hell you sit here and think Britain is bad due to our GUN LAWS ??? My god y’all need to get over your gun fetish and get onto some other fetish.
As teenagers get more and more fucked up, your high school shootings will become a REGULAR thing, having METAL DETECTORS in school IS NOT A GOOD THING.
What are you, the fuckin Question Czar? You dip your scepter and we here at TN are obligated to answer you but you will do likewise in your own good time?
Bingo, now you have it, you and sifu have far more patience than me. Everything that Sifu has posted in re to England can be applied to Australia as well, we are going down the shit chute as well.
[/quote]
We aren’t quite as bad as England yet…still…internet filter…