|
Post by FlyHawkJoe S.O.B. on Mar 24, 2008 16:52:32 GMT -6
I can see the "benefits" of wearing a coat like that.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 24, 2008 17:00:15 GMT -6
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by Justhawks17 on Mar 24, 2008 18:19:02 GMT -6
There is no reason to NEED a Gun. THis world is so messed up. Weapons are for FUCKING PUSSY's. There is no reason that people should have to be afriad(sp) to live. I know, it isnt aq perfect world and never well be an I know I have alot of learning to do but, even so, There is no reason that you should have to have protection. People need to learn how to grow the f'k up.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 24, 2008 20:51:41 GMT -6
Uhhh, haven't liberals written op-ed pieces after every mass shooting in the past decade or so begging for more gun control? The justification is always the same - guns kill people. In this case, something other than guns killed people, if liberals don't immediately seek to outlaw whatever that something is, lives will be at risk. And conservatives have written counter-letters touting the effectiveness of full (or semi) automatic action in crowd control situations. The big difference is that us liberals view things a bit differently... While every conservative wants everyone to have a gun, every liberal wishes only those deemed as mentally competent and well reasoned be allowed to do so... which, of course, excludes all conservatives from gun ownership. I'd be interested in seeing these pieces on the use of weaponry for crowd control that have been drafted by conservatives. My guess is that the only difference between those pieces and the pieces drafted by liberals in the wake of the VT and NIU shootings is that the pieces I've cited actually exist. It's strange how sometimes my brethren to the left quickly engage in speaking in absolutes when discussing gun control. Only a few posts up, one conservative noted the need for a middle ground in the poll, yet "every conservative wants everyone to have a gun." There are many liberals who don't want anyone to have a gun. See, e.g., the municipal regulations of DC or Chicago for a few examples of liberals who have attempted to dispossess the populace of handguns.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 24, 2008 21:01:43 GMT -6
I never said that I do not think the 2nd amendment gives ordinary, non-militia citizens the right to firearms. While it does not forbid guns to those outside of militias, it certainly does not guarentee the right to anyone outside of a militia. I was just pointing out the irony of SC's who do not understand the entire amendment. Militias were extremely relevant back when this amendment was written. However, bince they are not relevant anymore, people ignore that part, although it is an essential part of the amendment. The argement could be made that it is as relevant as quartering soilders. And bince you brought up meaning, the reason it was in the constitution in the first place is because the British crown was forcibly disarming the American militias, to keep them from rebelling against them. This amendment was not designed to protect people, it was designed to protect the People (the rights of the citizens) from their own government. Don't worry, we know you never said what you claimed you didn't said. That would require a plain reading of the Constitution. If the clause in question had been drafted to preclude the state from infringing on the Militia's right to bear arms, the drafters would have certainly used the word "Militia" rather than "people" in the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." People is a much larger group than "Militia." It looks like your indoctrination into the cult of liberal fascism is complete. Your will to protect "the People" has been sacrificed for what you perceive as a little extra safety granted by the hand of the nanny state.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Mar 25, 2008 6:06:49 GMT -6
Ralph, I would like to respectfully point out that even though many conservatives aren't exactly requiring everyone to own a gun, the NRA is a powerful lobbying force, and that's an important point in this matter.
The NRA wants to keep guns flowing freely to nearly anyone who wants them, and they are the ones with the power.
I think that there are reasonable minds on both sides of the debate, but unfortunately, powerful lobbying groups make a huge difference.
Even though you fear that libs who want all guns taken away will try to make that happen, you have nothing to worry about. The NRA will never let that happen.
Personally, I'm not for taking away guns, but I feel that they're far too easy to get.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 25, 2008 7:13:45 GMT -6
If the liberals really wanted to piss some people off, they could outlaw bullets. Nothing in the constitution about that...
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 25, 2008 7:18:19 GMT -6
If the liberals really wanted to piss some people off, they could outlaw bullets. Nothing in the constitution about that... I agree - there is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to outlaw bullets, but lack of authorization has never been a barrier to big government liberal knuckle dragging. See, e.g., Medicare, Social Security, etc.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 25, 2008 7:33:44 GMT -6
If the liberals really wanted to piss some people off, they could outlaw bullets. Nothing in the constitution about that... I agree - there is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to outlaw bullets, but lack of authorization has never been a barrier to big government liberal knuckle dragging. See, e.g., Medicare, Social Security, etc. I beleive the right to levy taxes and spend the treasury for the national welfare is one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Let me check... Yep, Article 1, section 8... Also I was kidding. The 9th amendment would, I beleive, restrict a ban on bullets.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 25, 2008 7:52:51 GMT -6
Oh the liberal mental gymnastics to hijack the language. A transfer payment is not within the purview of "general welfare" of Article I, Section 8, as adopted by the Framers. It took the father of liberal fascism, Franklin Roosevelt, to threaten the Supreme Court in order to turn transfer payment into "general welfare." Liberal ideology stands firmly on some big, fascist shoulders. Kind of like the comrade in that poster you keep posting.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 25, 2008 8:07:37 GMT -6
Oh the liberal mental gymnastics to hijack the language. A transfer payment is not within the purview of "general welfare" of Article I, Section 8, as adopted by the Framers. It took the father of liberal fascism, Franklin Roosevelt, to threaten the Supreme Court in order to turn transfer payment into "general welfare." Liberal ideology stands firmly on some big, fascist shoulders. Kind of like the comrade in that poster you keep posting. What's with you? If your goal is to inject humor, it's not making the connection - as you're simply seen as being a cock. Banging the "liberal fascist" drum may work for one or two people, as everybody else thinks . But I'll reciprocate: Conservative ideology stands firmly on some paranoid, closeted gay shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 25, 2008 8:09:33 GMT -6
I agree, they only want guns because it looks like a big cock!
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 25, 2008 8:27:12 GMT -6
Wow, those are interesting takes that you guys have. Interesting how you are quick to inject phallic symbols and homosexuality into a conversation that had nothing to do with those matters. I wonder what's on your minds right now. Do you have anything you want to share? No one here will judge you.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 25, 2008 8:30:10 GMT -6
Wow, those are interesting takes that you guys have. Interesting how you are quick to inject phallic symbols and homosexuality into a conversation that had nothing to do with those matters. I wonder what's on your minds right now. Do you have anything you want to share? No one here will judge you. Gee... kind of like FDR or fascism had no relevance except in your paranoid (and cock-filled gayness) mind???
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 25, 2008 8:36:30 GMT -6
FDR's relationship to the remaking of the general welfare clause related to the general discussion. Your continued raising of sexuality leads a rational observer to conclude that you've got something big on your mind. Are you planning an announcement for the board? I have a gay brother and I'm comfortable with that. If you need someone to talk to, just toss it out there, seriously, we won't judge you. We welcome all on the wasteland ('cept, EverHawk, I guess).
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 25, 2008 8:45:20 GMT -6
FDR's relationship to the remaking of the general welfare clause related to the general discussion. Your continued raising of sexuality leads a rational observer to conclude that you've got something big on your mind. Are you planning an announcement for the board? I have a gay brother and I'm comfortable with that. If you need someone to talk to, just toss it out there, seriously, we won't judge you. We welcome all on the wasteland ('cept, EverHawk, I guess). Why would I need to toss anything out there, everyone already knows you're my bottom. ....and how did the much repeated "liberal fascism" fit into the general discussion.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 25, 2008 9:32:48 GMT -6
This should clarify a few things:
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 25, 2008 11:10:41 GMT -6
Liberal fascism fits into any argument where big government liberals take the initiative to draft legislation that lacks authorization under the Constitution. It's cool though, the forefathers of liberal fascism like Mussolini didn't concern themselves with things like adherence to constitutional principles when insitituting their fascist regimes, I wouldn't expect the modern liberal fascist to do so either. Rather, I would expect them to only seek to defame those with whom they disagree, like their liberal fascists forefathers did.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 25, 2008 11:45:19 GMT -6
I am begining to think that the dictionary definition of "Liberal fascist" is "Anyone who Ralph does not like".
And then in the same dictionary I looked up "irony", and it said "The guy who calls everyone a fascist complaining about others who defame those who disagree with them".
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 25, 2008 11:50:55 GMT -6
Liberal fascism fits into any argument where big government liberals take the initiative to draft legislation that lacks authorization under the Constitution. It's cool though, the forefathers of liberal fascism like Mussolini didn't concern themselves with things like adherence to constitutional principles when insitituting their fascist regimes, I wouldn't expect the modern liberal fascist to do so either. Rather, I would expect them to only seek to defame those with whom they disagree, like their liberal fascists forefathers did. If it's unconstitutional, why don't you file suit? Should be a fairly simple process for someone with your legal acumen. And I agree... These liberal fascists voted for the Brady Bill: Bond (R-MO) Chafee (R-RI) Coats (R-IN) Cohen (R-ME) Danforth (R-MO) Durenberger (R-MN) Gorton (R-WA) Hatfield (R-OR) Hutchison (R-TX) Jeffords (R-VT) Kassebaum (R-KS) Lugar (R-IN) Packwood (R-OR) Roth (R-DE) Thurmond (R-SC) Warner (R-VA)
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 25, 2008 19:20:28 GMT -6
Maybe I can put this whole gun control issue to bed for everyone. I have found that the best gun control......and it is the gun control we use in the Iowafan1 household......is controlling your family spending as to ensure you have plenty of cash left over to purchase AT LEAST, but NO LESS THAN, one firearm every six months. I have been doing this for roughly 25 years and it works great. When that next civil war comes, AND IT WILL, or the terrorists arrive at your doorstep to slice the heads off your family members, AND THEY WILL, Iowafan1 and his family and friends will be ready.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 25, 2008 20:21:25 GMT -6
Maybe I can put this whole gun control issue to bed for everyone. I have found that the best gun control......and it is the gun control we use in the Iowafan1 household......is controlling your family spending as to ensure you have plenty of cash left over to purchase AT LEAST, but NO LESS THAN, one firearm every six months. I have been doing this for roughly 25 years and it works great. When that next civil war comes, AND IT WILL, or the terrorists arrive at your doorstep to slice the heads off your family members, AND THEY WILL, Iowafan1 and his family and friends will be ready. I have the same theory with sex dolls
|
|