Page 70 of 77 FirstFirst ... 20606869707172 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 768

Thread: Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

  1. #691
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenlaar View Post
    Except for that whole well regulated militia thing, but why pay attention to that bit and the historical context?
    Lots of legal scholars have argued both ways. Based on the English standards at the time it does not modify the primary sentence which includes ". . . shall not be infringed."
    Last edited by ~Rocktar~; 10-06-2017 at 08:56 PM.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

  2. #692
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parkbandit View Post
    Then we shouldn't go down the slope at all?

    Ok, then you are fine with anyone owning a fully auto machine gun?

    What about a rocket launcher?

    What about a tank?

    What about a nuclear weapon?

    Do you see how your argument makes no sense at all?
    Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want? Why is it that wen a drunk hits someone, it's the drunk's fault, when a suicide bomber kills people, it's the bomber's fault, when a terrorist (or fucked up rich teen brat) drives into a crowd it's their fault but when someone shoots people (other than in Tennessee) it's the gun's fault?
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

  3. #693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~ View Post
    Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them.
    And I thought Back was the king of stupidity. Congratulations on stealing his crown.

  4. #694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~ View Post
    Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want? Why is it that wen a drunk hits someone, it's the drunk's fault, when a suicide bomber kills people, it's the bomber's fault, when a terrorist (or fucked up rich teen brat) drives into a crowd it's their fault but when someone shoots people (other than in Tennessee) it's the gun's fault?
    Because a gun multiplies the bodycount to an insane level, why is this so fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking hard for you to understand???

    Make swords legal I don't care. Make wheelocks legal like in the founding father days, sure. But, a machine gun that can wipe out 50 people in a matter of seconds is just not cool.

  5. #695
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    8,798
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    And I thought Back was the king of stupidity. Congratulations on stealing his crown.
    It's a big enough crown for the two of them to share.
    You had better pay your guild dues before you forget. You are 113 months behind.

  6. #696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~ View Post
    Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want? Why is it that wen a drunk hits someone, it's the drunk's fault, when a suicide bomber kills people, it's the bomber's fault, when a terrorist (or fucked up rich teen brat) drives into a crowd it's their fault but when someone shoots people (other than in Tennessee) it's the gun's fault?
    So, you are fine with people owning nuclear weapons, as long as they can afford them?

    I'm not blaming guns or anyone and I am a NRA supporter.. but you might be the only one I have ever had a conversation with that believes that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon.

    I'm not sure where to go from here.

  7. #697
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Necro View Post
    Because a gun multiplies the bodycount to an insane level, why is this so fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking fucking hard for you to understand???

    Make swords legal I don't care. Make wheelocks legal like in the founding father days, sure. But, a machine gun that can wipe out 50 people in a matter of seconds is just not cool.
    Whaaaaaaaaaa, I am overly emotional that guns might kill people and I can't personally handle the responsibility of owning one and so obviously no one else should own them either.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

  8. #698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~ View Post
    Lots of legal scholars have argued both ways. Based on the English standards at the time it does not modify the primary sentence which includes ". . . shall not be infringed."
    Okay, surely you can easily explain this then. The second part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is not modified by the first half of the sentence. So, what did they put the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part there for? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...what? What is the purpose of mentioning well regulated militias if the second part of the sentence is not related to them?

  9. #699
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    21,312
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenlaar View Post
    Okay, surely you can easily explain this then. The second part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is not modified by the first half of the sentence. So, what did they put the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part there for? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...what? What is the purpose of mentioning well regulated militias if the second part of the sentence is not related to them?
    Do you know what a militia is?

  10. #700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    Do you know what a militia is?
    Sure. It's something that was considered vital to the safety of the nation in a time when a massive standing national army not only didn't exist, but was seen as a danger in and of itself.
    Last edited by Tenlaar; 10-07-2017 at 05:47 AM.

Posting Permissions

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