Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Bytch]

Which means nothing?

So, the Constitution means nothing to you? GTFO of America?

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 04:48 PM ----------

I don't disagree with what you say, but the "burden of proof" IS on you...

No, the burden of proof, Is actually on you, since you are the ones wanting my guns. My burden and proof have been written and debated and sourced for 200 years.

[Reeve]

Instead of "TRYING" to make a point or prove one. Maybe you should do more research and see other cases that prove mine. Im not doing the home-work for you. There are many more proving mine, than there is making a point for yours

District of Columbia v. Heller is the most up to date interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on the matter of which armaments are covered. Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim that you have a right to any type of weapon, the burden of proof is on you, but I know you won't be able to prove it, since you'd have to find a more up to date Supreme Court decision, and you won't. The only 2nd amendment decision since that one was McDonald v. Chicago which only stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to states as well as the Federal Government.

[Tradewind]

So, the Constitution means nothing to you? GTFO of America?

I'm not in America anyway, not surprising that you'd think everyone is. But I know enough to recognize that your understanding of your own constitution is remedial at best.

"Shall not be infringed" has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of weapons you are able to obtain or that you're able to arm yourself with military grade weaponry.

I wouldn't trust someone like you with a fucking salad shooter, let alone private ownership of any sort of heavy arms.

[Maleficus]

The Supreme Court, the final arbiters of the meaning of the constitution have specifically said the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean you have a right to military grade weaponry.

The supreme court can be wrong. Now, i imagine that the founders,as great as their foresight was, could not have imagined the level to which weaponry would advance to. That being said, their intent of the 2nd amendment was clearly for defense against tyranny. Surely they would not be saying on one hand that the right to bear arms is to keep gubmint in check and then on the other hand suggest that law abiding citizens should not have access to the same arms.

[Priestiality]

So, the Constitution means nothing to you? GTFO of America?

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 04:48 PM ----------




No, the burden of proof, Is actually on you, since you are the ones wanting my guns. My burden and proof have been written and debated and sourced for 200 years.

LOL I don't want your guns, I have plenty of my own. However, it is up to YOU to find OBJECTIVE evidence from an OBJECTIVE source, and exhibit said evidence in support of your stance. You have not done that. The rest of us arguing against gun control HAVE.

[Kasierith]

You would think with all this hysteria over guns, you would keep up with national news. Its on your tv. Plenty of sources.

One, saying "national tv!!" is not a source. It's a reference that you have failed to back up. Second, awww you think that televised news is accurate.

....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...is my source.

I see you're having trouble with this concept. In an online discussion, it stands to reason that appeals to personal knowledge means nothing. I could be Stephen Hawking in real life, but that doesn't mean jack because there is no way to validate it. Therefore, when there is a disagreement, it is customary to reference outside sources in order to establish validity and present a coherent presentation.

[Beazy]

So, the Constitution means nothing to you? GTFO of America?

He has the right to his opinion, a real American would respect that and agree to disagree.

[Tradewind]

The supreme court can be wrong. Now, i imagine that the founders,as great as their foresight was, could not have imagined the level to which weaponry would advance to. That being said, their intent of the 2nd amendment was clearly for defense against tyranny. Surely they would not be saying on one hand that the right to bear arms is to keep gubmint in check and then on the other hand suggest that law abiding citizens should not have access to the same arms.

I imagine the forefathers thought the British Empire was going to become some gargantuan oligarchy claiming ownership of the entire planet for the King. Since that was the whole point of the amendment in the first place...

[Deadvolcanoes]

...but the "prohibition of guns" would solve the problem? What?

Who wants to prohibit guns? What?

[Bytch]

I'm not in America anyway, not surprising that you'd think everyone is. But I know enough to recognize that your understanding of your own constitution is remedial at best.

"Shall not be infringed" has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of weapons you are able to obtain or that you're able to arm yourself with military grade weaponry.

I wouldn't trust someone like you with a fucking salad shooter, let alone private ownership of any sort of heavy arms.

Shall not be infringed has EVERYTHING to do with weaponry of any type of grade. But yet, its you that will be looking for me when sh!t goes down. No matter what kinda sh!t it is. I know more about MY Constitution, than you may think. Maybe all of you should do some reading.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...s/fedindex.htm

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 04:56 PM ----------

He has the right to his opinion, a real American would respect that and agree to disagree.

But, yet when those types of people disagree with us on different issues. IE..Taxes. They say, " if you dont want to pay taxes, GTFO". Its a two-way street.

[Priestiality]

Shall not be infringed has EVERYTHING to do with weaponry of any type of grade. But yet, its you that will be looking for me when sh!t goes down. No matter what kinda sh!t it is. I know more about MY Constitution, than you may think. Maybe all of you should do some reading.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...s/fedindex.htm

Uh no, I won't be looking for you. Let me guess, Alex Jones got done for the day so you figured "I know! Since I can't scream on the radio or TV I'll go rant on MMO-C forums! Can't wait to wake up some 'sleeping' newbs!"

[Beazy]

Shall not be infringed has EVERYTHING to do with weaponry of any type of grade. But yet, its you that will be looking for me when sh!t goes down. No matter what kinda sh!t it is. I know more about MY Constitution, than you may think. Maybe all of you should do some reading.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...s/fedindex.htm

Wait, you honestly believe you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

Dude, you cant honestly believe that. I refuse to believe that you believe that.

[Garnier Fructis]

Shall not be infringed has EVERYTHING to do with weaponry of any type of grade. But yet, its you that will be looking for me when sh!t goes down. No matter what kinda sh!t it is. I know more about MY Constitution, than you may think. Maybe all of you should do some reading.

And yet, I never see any outrage about the restrictions on knives and poisons.

[Deleted]

Cool. A 14 year old child shot in the face outside a middle-school.

[Tradewind]

Shall not be infringed has EVERYTHING to do with weaponry of any type of grade. But yet, its you that will be looking for me when sh!t goes down. No matter what kinda sh!t it is. I know more about MY Constitution, than you may think. Maybe all of you should do some reading.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...s/fedindex.htm

So you think you're entitled to own your very own cache of JDAM's? What Title 2 weapon/ordinance do you feel you need to own to feel safe in your own home? I'm guessing you secretly dream about deterring would-be home intruders with your M82. You could even setup a table infront of the front door to mount it on for a good level.

[Kasierith]

Wait, you honestly believe you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

He's apparently never read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2131, along with http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2121

[Bytch]

Cool. A 14 year old child shot in the face outside a middle-school.

Cool. A 13 yr old girl saves herself from attackers while home alone with guns.

[Maleficus]

Who wants to prohibit guns? What?

I could have sworn i saw somewhere around here some "people" wanting gun bans. I guess i was wrong. Thanks bro!

[Bytch]

He's apparently never read http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2131, along with http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2121

Im not a lawyer. Id run a chain-saw across their faces any time I saw one. They are the main reason our country has gone to sh!t


BTW. Thats the law to make money from the xfers of weapon. Its a revenue. Its not a law banning guns

[Kasierith]

Cool. A 13 yr old girl saves herself from attackers while home alone with guns.

I thought gun owners were supposed to be responsible enough to keep their guns away from children.