Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
17
18
... LastLast
  1. #301
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Of course it does, it qualifies that men in a well regulated (trained) and stocked militia (armories) have the right to bear arms against an invasion of a European super power.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It was warm in Britain during the middle ages.
    No, again the SCOTUS has ruled that "the people" in the 1st Amendment is the same as "the people" in the 2nd Amendment. And guess what? The opinion of the SCOTUS is the ONLY one that matters unless you can muster the votes to get a new Amendment. (And that isnt going to happen.)

  2. #302
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    No, again the SCOTUS has ruled that "the people" in the 1st Amendment is the same as "the people" in the 2nd Amendment. And guess what? The opinion of the SCOTUS is the ONLY one that matters unless you can muster the votes to get a new Amendment. (And that isnt going to happen.)
    So now the constitution is a living document? Cool story liberal.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    So now the constitution is a living document? Cool story liberal.
    Now that is truly funny. It's the liberal justices that agree with your point of view and the conservative ones that say the original meaning was all of the people not just organized militias. Cool story conservative.

  4. #304
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    Now that is truly funny. It's the liberal justices that agree with your point of view and the conservative ones that say the original meaning was all of the people not just organized militias. Cool story conservative.
    So what is it then? A militia in 1789 was a local group of able-bodied men with access and supervision of an armory to ensure combat readiness and well stocked munitions.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  5. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    So what is it then? A militia in 1789 was a local group of able-bodied men with access and supervision of an armory to ensure combat readiness and well stocked munitions.
    The militia in 1789 was every able bodied man.

  6. #306
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    The militia in 1789 was every able bodied man.
    An unarmed able-bodied man was armed at the local armory, paid either through city funds or by the wealthy, it was an indirect form of conscription.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    An unarmed able-bodied man was armed at the local armory, paid either through city funds or by the wealthy, it was an indirect form of conscription.
    I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. It essentially states that there were armed men and thus the founders had no problem with armed citizens. You are allowed to armed - not forced to be armed.

  8. #308
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. It essentially states that there were armed men and thus the founders had no problem with armed citizens. You are allowed to armed - not forced to be armed.
    It's proving that militias were not "the people", but rather a trained group of able-bodied men with access to communal munitions and arms provided by city, state, or a wealthy landowner who paid for the upkeep of the armory so they didn't have to fight in the local militia.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    Heh...they didn't have to drive a State over. The city itself had a handgun ban but there were places just outside Chicago one could go to purchase a firearm before the ban was lifted due to being Unconstitutional

    About 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest in Chicago from 2009 to 2013 were from out of state, 24 percent were from Indiana and 22 percent were from parts of Cook County outside the city where gun laws are looser, according to a study conducted by Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab.

    The Chicago Police Department tracked the origin of 50,000 guns between 2002 and 2012 and found that 24 percent came from Indiana or Mississippi, according to the New York Times.

    http://chicagoist.com/2015/10/08/_go...tes_donald.php

    I bought my gun in Mt. Greenwood which is about a 15 minutes outside the city and my wife bought hers in Hammond, IN. As usual you're outright lying.
    From your same source:

    Cook recently studied the origins of guns recovered in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. Of the more than 7,000 guns he studied, “the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs,” Cook said, adding that "the gang conflict in Chicago has been particularly lethal over the decades and part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns."
    Do you know what happens when guns get banned in the US? It's the same things that happened to drugs when they were banned in the US. Mexico starts producing and supplying them all. Want to know who loses guns? Law abiding citizens... want to know who keeps their guns? Gang members.

  10. #310
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Narwal View Post
    From your same source:



    Do you know what happens when guns get banned in the US? It's the same things that happened to drugs when they were banned in the US. Mexico starts producing and supplying them all. Want to know who loses guns? Law abiding citizens... want to know who keeps their guns? Gang members.
    I'm sorry could you tell me anywhere in this thread where I was promoting a gun ban.

    My entire purpose for even entering this thread was folks who think Chicago has some sort of gun ban...We don't anymore.

    What you quoted me on was simply me showing that even though we previously did have a ban on firearms it was extremely easy to purchase a weapon outside of the city limits.

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    It's proving that militias were not "the people", but rather a trained group of able-bodied men with access to communal munitions and arms provided by city, state, or a wealthy landowner who paid for the upkeep of the armory so they didn't have to fight in the local militia.
    You truly are willfully obstinate in this. Private ownership of firearms was extremely common in the time of the founders and beyond has been proven beyond doubt by historians. There were even laws in place in many localities that actually required firearm ownership.

  12. #312
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    You truly are willfully obstinate in this. Private ownership of firearms was extremely common in the time of the founders and beyond has been proven beyond doubt by historians. There were even laws in place in many localities that actually required firearm ownership.
    No it was not. Private ownership of firearms occurred when mass production, Sam Colt, nearly 50-60 years after the declaration of Independence, brought the price down considerably. During the time of the the American Revolution and the Bill of Rights, firearm ownership was engendered to entire families, hence the entire reason why armories existed in the first place, to arm the majority of able-bodied men who did not have a musket passed down to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    No it was not. Private ownership of firearms occurred when mass production, Sam Colt, nearly 50-60 years after the declaration of Independence, brought the price down considerably. During the time of the the American Revolution and the Bill of Rights, firearm ownership was engendered to entire families, hence the entire reason why armories existed in the first place, to arm the majority of able-bodied men who did not have a musket passed down to them.
    Ok I'm done with this. You are getting tied up in your reading of the wording - which is a reason not a condition or regulation - of the second amendment rather than the writers' intent.

    You are partially correct in that some states/localities had programs to supply arms to the poor for the purposes or a militia for the common defense, but private ownership was not barred - in some localities even required. There are entire books written about private ownership of firearms during the times of the founders. Even if every individual did not own a firearm pretty much every household had one. They were needed not only for protection but to put food on the table.

  14. #314
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    Ok I'm done with this. You are getting tied up in your reading of the wording - which is a reason not a condition or regulation - of the second amendment rather than the writers' intent.

    You are partially correct in that some states/localities had programs to supply arms to the poor for the purposes or a militia for the common defense, but private ownership was not barred - in some localities even required. There are entire books written about private ownership of firearms during the times of the founders. Even if every individual did not own a firearm pretty much every household had one. They were needed not only for protection but to put food on the table.
    I'm pointing out that the reason why the first portion of the 2nd amendment had the words militia and well-regulated, were because of the times in which it was written. A time when the majority of able-bodied men did not have arms or munitions, and the existence of armories were inexorable from the existence of militias. The right of militias to be armed, with armories supplied by city, state, or local wealthy landowners, and regularly train, in the event of an invasion from a foreign superpower, shall not be infringed.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    Ok I'm done with this. You are getting tied up in your reading of the wording - which is a reason not a condition or regulation - of the second amendment rather than the writers' intent.

    You are partially correct in that some states/localities had programs to supply arms to the poor for the purposes or a militia for the common defense, but private ownership was not barred - in some localities even required. There are entire books written about private ownership of firearms during the times of the founders. Even if every individual did not own a firearm pretty much every household had one. They were needed not only for protection but to put food on the table.
    No, you are just wrong. In the 18th century, a firearm cost around a year's wage for the average laborer. In fact, a concern of the founders was that the cost of the standing army was so incredibly high that it would bloat the federal government and make massive federal taxation necessary.

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    No, you are just wrong. In the 18th century, a firearm cost around a year's wage for the average laborer. In fact, a concern of the founders was that the cost of the standing army was so incredibly high that it would bloat the federal government and make massive federal taxation necessary.
    Just because firearms were expensive doesn't mean they weren't owned. Farmers today own equipment that costs decades of labor wages. A tool that is necessary for the protection and provides food for the family and will last generations is an investment that pays off many times over.

    Here is a study of firearms ownership in colonial times: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol43/iss5/2/

    Now if you'd like to provide a contrary source, I'll be happy to read over it and discuss further.

  17. #317
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Grizzly Hills
    Posts
    3,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakehead View Post
    Wtf is going on over there
    They realize Derrick Rose sux.

    And I would smash serena.
    http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...his?p=22349552
    You cared enough to post.

  18. #318
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    So now the constitution is a living document? Cool story liberal.
    The Constitution is what it always has been. It is a document subject to the interpretation of the SCOTUS and subject to modification by the people. If you dont like what the Constitution has been ruled to mean, then you try to get an amendment passed to make it how you want it.

  19. #319
    Anybody who thinks the Founding Fathers did not intend for citizens to own guns has absolutely no clue what they are speaking of.

    What is even funnier is people talk about the Supreme Court and govt interpretation of the Constitution yet fail to acknowledge US vs Miller in which the US govt argued that the 2nd Amendment allowed for citizens to only own military weapons such as machine guns and not a sawed off shotgun. But since the narrative of the gun grabbers has changed since then, they avoid discussing that one.

    Fact: Gun Grabbers will do and say anything to accomplish their goal. They do not care about facts, only goals. they will distort words and cling to interpretations that fit their view and reject the same ones when it no longer suits their goal.

    Oh and btw, the Supreme Court cannot make law or alter the intent of the 2nd or any other birthright of the American people. This is a fallacy spread by statists. It is strictly prohibited in fact by the 9th and 10th Amendments. And....The fucking Supreme Court routinely gets shit totally fucking wrong and sometimes intentionally.

    The Bill of Rights which are called Amendments, were not added to change the Constitution btw. They were added to CLARIFY the Constitution unlike later Amendments which were to change law. They were added to keep the Union intact. Madison specifically even argued against their inclusion originally and no it was not because he didnt want people to have rights but because he did not want the govt to perceive a LIMIT to those rights. Do you understand the difference? Because there is a big difference. Try reading the largely overlooked or ignored Preamble sometime. It explains much.

    http://www.billofrights.org/

    Most of the Founding Fathers are what you would call Libertarians today. There was one thing they almost all fuckin hated and that was statists and Totalitarian Govt powers. Even fucking Hamilton was against the idea of a govt that the people could not take up arms against and remove if needed and Hamilton was the biggest Federalist of them all! Of all the Founding Fathers Big Govt Democrats should worship,, he is the one. Why dont you read some of his words in the Federalist Papers. Such as this gem.

    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. " Alexander Hamilton -The Federalist Papers

    and one last thing,

    Molon Labe motherfuckers.
    Last edited by Oktoberfest; 2016-04-27 at 05:17 AM.

  20. #320
    The Unstoppable Force DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    20,085
    Sadly my dear local city of Chicago has a stupidly high amount of poverty and gang violence. Guns are sold en masse in certain neighborhoods in the south and west side.

    The main parts of the city though, are pretty damned safe.
    "A flower.
    Yes. Upon your return, I will gift you a beautiful flower."

    "Remember. Remember... that we once lived..."

    Quote Originally Posted by mmocd061d7bab8 View Post
    yeh but lava is just very hot water

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •