RIP more innocent victims - Page 12 - Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #221 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-18-2013, 08:17 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
cheekybloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVTMAVERICK View Post
I'M NOT GOING TO LIE.... I'm LMAO
Makes me glad to know that, laughter is good for you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cheekybloke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #222 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-18-2013, 10:43 PM
TOP GUN Instructor
 
RVTMAVERICK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where I >Try to LIVE< Always within the Moment of Thanksgiving to Christ Jesus, My Lord Saviour!
Posts: 5,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekybloke View Post
Makes me glad to know that, laughter is good for you.

Good to know we atleast agree upon that..


Stay out of trouble Cheeky.
RVTMAVERICK is offline  
post #223 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-19-2013, 04:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,833
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Let's just get something clear, for the record. Guntards say the Second was written to address the citizens capability to defend against a tyranical government. I agree with that.

Guntards also say the Second wasn't wirtten with hunting in mind. I also agree with that.

What I haven't heard guntards say is that the Second was not written with personal self-defense in mind. In other words, there is no right to a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Anyone of a neutral position who reads the Second would have to agree with that too.

So the ONLY right granted by the Second is the right to arms for the purpose of fighting against our government.

Obviously, the words "well regulated militia" are in there too but they are just ignored by our current Supreme Court that operates under a specific pro-gun agenda. But that's not what this post is about. I'm specifically talking about the right to self-defense against non-governmental foes. Where is that right in our Constitution? It isn't in our Constitution. It's a Supreme Court decision from 2008 and 2010. They read the Constitution and then they ignored it's wording and just made things up. What does that tell you about our current Supreme Court?

Clearly, the Founders were talking about defending the "state", not the home or the person. Also for the record, I'm for allowing firearm ownership for the purpose of self-defense (at least in the home anyway). I'm just pointing out that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second is full of bull (and yes, by extension, I support that bull to some degree). But with Republicans continually going down the social warfare/pro-Oligarchy/Anglo-Christian/do nothing/hate politics rat hole I would expect the makeup of the Supreme Court to change back to liberal, which will likely result in the interpretation of the Second changing again. It's just a matter of time until the wording of the Second is taken seriously again.

IF the Founders had intended the gun ownership right to not be solely for the purpose of defending against tyrany then they could have worded the Second like this, unambiguous, clear, less open to interpretation:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But they didn't do that. Why didn't they? It stands out like a sore thumb.

Ironic isn't it, that the very people who yell so loudly about strict interpretation of the Constitution will so willfully ignore it's wording? Ironic indeed. Guntard logic? Inconsistent. Credibility? Close to zero.

Last edited by Gnhtsg; 02-19-2013 at 04:40 PM.
Gnhtsg is offline  
 
post #224 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-20-2013, 12:09 AM
Senior Member
 
XFBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NNJ
Posts: 6,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson View Post
Clearly, the Founders were talking about defending the "state", not the home or the person.
The only thing that is clear, is your level of retardation, which particularly makes your "guntard" labeling that much more amusing.

'12 Tri Explorer
'05 GSXR1k (4Sale)
'00 RC51 (4Sale)
XFBO is offline  
post #225 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-20-2013, 12:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,833
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I must have missed it but I didn't see the part about self-defense. No mention of home, property, self-defense. Nothing even close to it.

So let's stop playing games. The only Constitutional right we have to arms is for the purpose of defending a free state. And I'm all for that. I'm even for self-defense too, even though it goes against the Constitution. You see, Sam, or Joe, or whatever your name was, I'm just honest about it. It is what it is...and it's flawed - it's like a riddle. What's even more flawed is the current interpretation of the Second. That is purely political.
Gnhtsg is offline  
post #226 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-20-2013, 12:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson View Post
I'm specifically talking about the right to self-defense against non-governmental foes. Where is that right in our Constitution? It isn't in our Constitution. It's a Supreme Court decision from 2008 and 2010. They read the Constitution and then they ignored it's wording and just made things up. What does that tell you about our current Supreme Court?
Hmm, it just occured to me...
Isn't that legislating from the bench?
Man, the consistent hypocrisy is amusing, to say the least.
Gnhtsg is offline  
post #227 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-21-2013, 02:02 AM
chimp on my shoulder
 
johnyisthedevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SoCal desert
Posts: 2,437
Send a message via Yahoo to johnyisthedevil
you clearly have a lot of reading to do about the historical wording and changes and how changes are made to the Constitution.

but let's postulate what they meant by "state" for a second?
STATE
Noun
The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time: "the state of the company's finances".
Adjective
Of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country: "the future of state education".

so what did they mean by state? I think the supreme court has figured that out and ruled that it included a persons individual right to live in a free condition or "state"
after all the bill of rights is about the people not the government.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
06 rc51 banzai/Simons, pcIII,ohlins... the usual
94 vfr 750 cafe project
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
johnyisthedevil is offline  
post #228 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-21-2013, 02:18 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnyisthedevil View Post
you clearly have a lot of reading to do about the historical wording and changes and how changes are made to the Constitution.

but let's postulate what they meant by "state" for a second?
STATE
Noun
The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time: "the state of the company's finances".
Adjective
Of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country: "the future of state education".

so what did they mean by state? I think the supreme court has figured that out and ruled that it included a persons individual right to live in a free condition or "state"
after all the bill of rights is about the people not the government.
I've read about the reasoning behind the 2008 and 2010 decisions. It's laughable. Face it, dude. The conservatives on the bench ignorred the wording of the Second and legislated from the bench. They let their bias get the better of them. FAIL.
That's why it will change again. It was a politcal decision. Scalia is one of the most idiological, partisan hack justices we've ever had.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Again, if the Founders intended to protect the rights of all citizens to own firearms why did they even put that part about a well regulated militia in there? They did not write the Second for all citizens. They wrote it for citizens who were part of an organized militia, and in those days that meant only men over 18.

And yeah right, when they said, the security of a free state, they were not talking about the state, they were talking about the people. Man, I thought the Founders knew their English.
Is that the best you can come up with?

Last edited by Gnhtsg; 02-21-2013 at 02:36 AM.
Gnhtsg is offline  
post #229 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-21-2013, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnyisthedevil View Post
Sowhat diid they mean by state? I think the supreme court has figured that out and ruled that it included a persons individual right to live in a free condition or "state"
after all the bill of rights is about the people not the government.
Yeah, they "figured that out" alright. They figured out how to bullshit everyone. You just happen to like this bullshit.
Gnhtsg is offline  
post #230 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-26-2013, 02:33 AM
...clink...!
 
nero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,725
I don't know why so many of my clear thinking friends here on speedzilla feel the need to argue with the resident pothead...

The only thought that comes to my mind when reading his spew-acious ramblings are "swing away, Merrill".

nero
'06 999
nero is offline  
post #231 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-26-2013, 01:20 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
cheekybloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by nero View Post
I don't know why so many of my clear thinking friends here on speedzilla feel the need to argue with the resident pothead...

The only thought that comes to my mind when reading his spew-acious ramblings are "swing away, Merrill".
Hey how's it going. Where are the other village people? Haven't seen much of the one that used to dress like a Marine, I think he was your drinking pal.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
cheekybloke is offline  
post #232 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-27-2013, 03:37 PM
TOP GUN Instructor
 
RVTMAVERICK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where I >Try to LIVE< Always within the Moment of Thanksgiving to Christ Jesus, My Lord Saviour!
Posts: 5,717
[QUOTE=nero;742906]I don't know why so many of my clear thinking friends here on speedzilla feel the need to argue with the resident pothead...

The only thought that comes to my mind when reading his spew-acious ramblings are "swing away, Merrill".[/QUOTE]



LMAO
RVTMAVERICK is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Speedzilla Motorcycle Message Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome