Guns and the Supreme Court

On reflection,
it seems to me that the underlying philosophical foundation
of the gun control supporters,
that pervades their thinking is:
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to any predator
who opts to threaten them.

Mr. Setanta, in your home,
do u practice safety drills to be able to
get down on your knees as fast as possible, if a burglar breaks in ?

I 'd rather go to the gunnery range.

David

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Laptop Computer: $899
Internet Connection: $29.95/month
Brandon arguing Constitutional Law: priceless

So, you disagree? If so, how?
Must every argument instantly degenerate into disparaging the other poster,
or do you actually have something to say about the topic?

That is the best that liberals can do,
by virtue of the intellectual bankruptcy of their philosophy.

Instead of REASONING,
thay 'd rather EMOTE their gut feelings; that 's sad.

David

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thomas wrote:
McTag wrote:
Okay since there are honestly-held but polarised legal opinions on this matter, a clarification is obviously required, and a revision to the wording of the Constitution, written as it was all these years ago for a completely different world.

Maybe something along the lines of

"Whereas it is recognised that the function of law enforcement is nowadays undertaken by the police, and the function of defense of the state is undertaken by the armed forces, and no citizen has need to shoot his slaves or the indians or his neighbours or the redcoats any more,

and whereas many of the the people who own guns seem to be the very last people who should be let anywhere near them,

and due to a large number of regularly recurring regrettable incidents, for the better governance of the country and the safety of its citizens the previous widely-assumed "right of the people to bear arms" is hereby rescinded."

Congratulations, you get it! Now all you have to do is persuade two thirds of each house of Congress to pass this amendment, then get three quarters of the states to ratify it -- and you're done!

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas . . . you're so naïve.
First he has to found a special interest group with more money
and a wider base among the electorate than the National Rifle Association
(an organization which seems much more interested in handguns and
machine guns than in rifles).

It is worthy of note
that democracy cannot work
without such special interest groups as NRA
or the 2nd Amendment Foundation et al,
because the electorate wud endure in a state of woeful ignorance
of what governments are doing on all levels, fed, state n local.
We RELY upon SIGs to alert us to what is in the works
before its too late, so that we can contact our representatives
and threaten to disemploy them if thay fail to represent US
and just do as thay damn please.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

On reflection,
it seems to me that the underlying philosophical foundation
of the gun control supporters,
that pervades their thinking is:
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to any predator
who opts to threaten them.

Mr. Setanta, in your home,
do u practice safety drills to be able to
get down on your knees as fast as possible, if a burglar breaks in ?

I 'd rather go to the gunnery range.

David

David, you are on to something...

Mr & Mrs. Anti-Gun American,
Do you and your family practice safety drills to be able to
get down on your knees as fast as possible, if a burglar breaks in ??

Do you have a lawn sign that states "No Guns in This Home - We are Unarmed" ??

Mr & Mrs. Anti-Gun American,
during an armed forced entry into your home by bad guys would you insist that the armed citizen that just arrived to help you
and your family promptly disarm him or her self before rendering assistance to save you and your family from a brutal death ??

0 Replies

No, David, i don't go down on my knees--i would not go down on my knees to a burglar, no would i go down on my knees to some sick-f*ck gun nut--even if you had a gun pointed directly at my head, David.

You guys are really psycho, you know?

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Setanta wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The anti-gun wackos really get a nut from an image like that . . .

I realize that you intended to say anti-gun wackos really get a nut from an image like that... so I corrected it for you.

I've long known that conservatives gun-nuts are born liars, you didn't need to provide such pathetic evidence.

that's pretty weak coming from a liberal gun-nut

What was weak was your pathetic attempt to stop playing the fool by attempting to pin your brand of stupidity on me.

If you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies.

0 Replies

You're really a psycho case, David--especially with your hysterical rants in which you erect strawmen about what i do or don't believe. You really have no idea what i believe. In fact, i'm not opposed to people owning fire arms--i am opposed to people owning any goddamned gun they can afford. To me, the balance of good sense would be to protect the right to bear arms by having a list of approved rifles from the Congress, and a complete ban of hand-guns. The real cowards are the members of Congress, though, whose fear of losing their place at the public troth is so great that they will suck up the the shits at NRA and loud-mouth, ranting fanatics such as you.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In fact, i'm not opposed to people owning fire arms--i am opposed to people owning any goddamned gun they can afford. To me, the balance of good sense would be to protect the right to bear arms by having a list of approved rifles from the Congress, and a complete ban of hand-guns. The real cowards are the members of Congress, though, whose fear of losing their place at the public troth is so great that they will suck up the the shits at NRA and loud-mouth, ranting fanatics such as you.

The misguided anger is strong in this one... this individual is being drawn to the dark side without realizing it.

Fear not, there is hope for this one who is not opposed to people owning fire arms.

My advise is that you acquire the very best fire arm(s), ammo and
accessories that you can afford to purchase and hone your skills.

0 Replies

I am a gun owner; my fear that is wacko gun-nuts such as david and others are doing about to take away my rights. Fanatics/idiots are seen with fear by more and more common citizens which will most likely lead to more restrictions than if they would just stfu.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Okay since there are honestly-held but polarised legal opinions on this matter, a clarification is obviously required, and a revision to the wording of the Constitution, written as it was all these years ago for a completely different world.

Nah. It's fine as is written.

McTag wrote:

Maybe something along the lines of

"Whereas it is recognised that the function of law enforcement is nowadays undertaken by the police, and the function of defense of the state is undertaken by the armed forces, and no citizen has need to shoot his slaves or the indians or his neighbours or the redcoats any more,

Civilians have a legitimate right to self defense in a modern society.

McTag wrote:

and whereas many of the people who own guns seem to be the very last people who should be let anywhere near them,

Balderdash.

McTag wrote:

and due to a large number of regularly recurring regrettable incidents, for the better governance of the country and the safety of its citizens the previous widely-assumed "right of the people to bear arms" is hereby rescinded[/i]."

It is a shame you guys repealed your freedom in England. But we have no intention of following you guys off the cliff.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Fine. If you were even one of us, you could try to get part of our Bill of Rights rescinded by Constitutional amendment. But until that happens, the courts should protect the rights that the Founders actually did give us.

After that, you could work on speech, religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. Yes, you could give up to the government all of our rights in the name of common security. However, we're talking about the law as it is now. Our Founders believed that the inherent, self-evident right to personal liberty implied directly the right to self-defense. Sorry. But you can turn your own government into a fascist, police state if it makes you feel better.

I still think there is more than a wee bit of obfuscation and disingenuousness in these answers. Self-delusion too. I don't mean to be rude, but sometime you're going to have to face this problem. Why not now?

Denouncing the enemies of freedom isn't a problem.

McTag wrote:

A government does not have to be a fascist police state to want to control handguns. Most in fact do that very thing, those in the First World at any rate. A wee bit paternalistic, maybe, more hands-on, in the interest of the greater good.

If "control handguns" means "ban handguns", no they don't. A lot of first world countries allow handgun ownership.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thomas wrote:
McTag wrote:
Okay since there are honestly-held but polarised legal opinions on this matter, a clarification is obviously required, and a revision to the wording of the Constitution, written as it was all these years ago for a completely different world.

Maybe something along the lines of

"Whereas it is recognised that the function of law enforcement is nowadays undertaken by the police, and the function of defense of the state is undertaken by the armed forces, and no citizen has need to shoot his slaves or the indians or his neighbours or the redcoats any more,

and whereas many of the the people who own guns seem to be the very last people who should be let anywhere near them,

and due to a large number of regularly recurring regrettable incidents, for the better governance of the country and the safety of its citizens the previous widely-assumed "right of the people to bear arms" is hereby rescinded."

Congratulations, you get it! Now all you have to do is persuade two thirds of each house of Congress to pass this amendment, then get three quarters of the states to ratify it -- and you're done!

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas . . . you're so naïve. First he has to found a special interest group with more money and a wider base among the electorate than the National Rifle Association (an organization which seems much more interested in handguns and machine guns than in rifles).

The NRA is no friend of machine gun owners. They compromise too much.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I am a gun owner; my fear that is wacko gun-nuts such as david and others are doing about to take away my rights. Fanatics/idiots are seen with fear by more and more common citizens which will most likely lead to more restrictions than if they would just stfu.

Like most (all?) other bigoted stereotypes, that characterization of gun rights advocates is completely bogus.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Fanatics/idiots are seen with fear by more and more common citizens which will most likely lead to more restrictions than if they would just stfu.

Good point
Fanatics/idiots on both sides of this issue should just stfu

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I am a gun owner; my fear that is wacko gun-nuts such as david and others are doing about to take away my rights. Fanatics/idiots are seen with fear by more and more common citizens which will most likely lead to more restrictions than if they would just stfu.

This is exactly the point. I was taught to handle fire arms safely when i was a boy. In the army, i qualified expert with M14, which i really enjoyed. I qualified with the M16 later, but just barely--i was not a fan of that weapon. I also qualified with the M1911 automatic pistol. But it is the hysteria of the gun crowd which is their own worst enemy. Look at how many of these jokers actually revert to a claim that people who do not own handguns are victims waiting to be victimized. You have a greater chance of being killed while crossing the street than being killed by a burglar. The highways are an abattoir. But there is a deep core fantasy going on in the minds of the fanatics--they dream of being able to blow someone away, and still be on the safe side of the law.

My advice to David is to forget the MP5 or the MP7. He should just go with the H&K MP10, with the suppressor. Then he could stalk the "criminals" in their natural habitat. A three round burst from any range inside 150 yards would blow up their heads like a watermelon hit by a 50 cal. slug. Then he could slip away, and head back home where other gun nuts would be waiting, playing poker, and prepared to alibi him. I'd advise, though, that he not stroke his hard-on until he gets home, so he can get away clean.

Yup, Dys, you got it . . . the gun nuts are their own worst enemies.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Thomas wrote:
McTag wrote:
Okay since there are honestly-held but polarised legal opinions on this matter, a clarification is obviously required, and a revision to the wording of the Constitution, written as it was all these years ago for a completely different world.

Maybe something along the lines of

"Whereas it is recognised that the function of law enforcement is nowadays undertaken by the police, and the function of defense of the state is undertaken by the armed forces, and no citizen has need to shoot his slaves or the indians or his neighbours or the redcoats any more,

and whereas many of the the people who own guns seem to be the very last people who should be let anywhere near them,

and due to a large number of regularly recurring regrettable incidents, for the better governance of the country and the safety of its citizens the previous widely-assumed "right of the people to bear arms" is hereby rescinded."

Congratulations, you get it! Now all you have to do is persuade two thirds of each house of Congress to pass this amendment, then get three quarters of the states to ratify it -- and you're done!

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas . . . you're so naïve. First he has to found a special interest group with more money and a wider base among the electorate than the National Rifle Association (an organization which seems much more interested in handguns and machine guns than in rifles).

The NRA is no friend of machine gun owners.

They compromise too much.

THIS IS TRUE.
NRA is never happier than when it is giving away the store.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, David, i don't go down on my knees--
i would not go down on my knees to a burglar,

I am pleased that u deny it.
It 'd have been a lot worse, if u had EMBRACED it.

Quote:

no would i go down on my knees to some sick-f*ck gun nut--
even if you had a gun pointed directly at my head, David.

We never wanted u to do that, Mr. Setanta.
We never even THOUGHT of it.

Its gratifying to see u show some bravery and strength of character.

Quote:

You guys are really psycho,
you know?

I DON 'T know that.

My fellow gun lovers, at our meetings thru out America,
do not display aberant social behavior.
Thay ofen show up with their wives n children,
nicely dressed, with everything calm, cool, nice and in good order.

Significantly, the rate of crime among gun lovers
with CCW licenses is below that of police officers,
for whatever that 's worth.

U know how I feel about it:
I bow to no man in my love of and support for
every citizen's constitutional right to unlimited gun freedom.

From the earliest age that I can remember ( 3 years )
I have felt that way.
I remember when I found out about the Sullivan Law:
the commie next door told me about it, when I was 5.
In a state of alarm,
I RAN into my house and asked my mother if it were true,
and got the bad news. Anyway, after many decades of life in advocacy
of this philosophy, I have never had any trouble with the law ( squeeky clean )
and, your allegations to the contrary not withstanding,
I have had no challlenges to my mental health,
other than on these fora,
resulting from the abhorence
to personal freedom of authoritarian-collectivist liberal pinkos.

David

0 Replies

I have never alleged that you have fallen afoul of the law. My reaction to you is that you are mentally unstable, and your obsession with guns, and the prospect of killing someone whom you allege to threaten you is to me evidence of that condition.

When you write **** such as: "authoritarian-collectivist liberal pinkos"; not only do you create a strawman, but you demonstrate that you don't know me, and that you don't understand those with whom you disagree. You seem to be one of those simple-minded types who think that anyone who would not agree with you must be defective in morality and courage. Fool. You have no reason to infer that those who disagree with you are opposed to personal freedom. License, yes, but not freedom.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have never alleged that you have fallen afoul of the law. My reaction to you is that you are mentally unstable, and your obsession with guns, and the prospect of killing someone whom you allege to threaten you is to me evidence of that condition.

When you write **** such as: "authoritarian-collectivist liberal pinkos"; not only do you create a strawman, but you demonstrate that you don't know me, and that you don't understand those with whom you disagree. You seem to be one of those simple-minded types who think that anyone who would not agree with you must be defective in morality and courage. Fool. You have no reason to infer that those who disagree with you are opposed to personal freedom. License, yes, but not freedom.

The denunciations are kind of retro-cute, though.

The only place I have really seen such language so consistently used is in propaganda from the Soviet Union in its heyday, and Mao's China.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I am a gun owner; my fear that is wacko gun-nuts such as david and others are doing about to take away my rights. Fanatics/idiots are seen with fear by more and more common citizens which will most likely lead to more restrictions than if they would just stfu.

Quote:
This is exactly the point.
I was taught to handle fire arms safely when i was a boy.
In the army, i qualified expert with M14, which i really enjoyed.

I did too.

Quote:
I qualified with the M16 later, but just barely--i was not a fan of that weapon.
I also qualified with the M1911 automatic pistol.
But it is the hysteria of the gun crowd which is their own worst enemy.

I am THRILLED by your solicitude
for our well-being.

Quote:

Look at how many of these jokers actually revert to a claim that people
who do not own handguns are victims waiting to be victimized.

Who said thay were " waiting " ??
Its just irresponsible planning,
like someone with no health insurance.

Quote:
You have a greater chance of being killed while crossing the street
than being killed by a burglar.

Yes; probably true.

Quote:
The highways are an abattoir.
But there is a deep core fantasy going on in the minds of the fanatics--
they dream of being able to blow someone away,
and still be on the safe side of the law.

WHO do u know that has these dreams ??
I don 't.
Do u know someone who is more loyal
to the philosophy of unlimited gun freedom than I am ???
Did someone beat me out ??

Quote:
My advice to David is to forget the MP5 or the MP7.
He should just go with the H&K MP10, with the suppressor.

Its not that I don 't appreciate the causticity of your sarcasm,
Mr. Setanta, but regardless, on the merits:
I do not believe in using .55 caliber guns for self defense.
I regard that as counterproductive overkill.

I 'd not even be inclined to use my .44 magnum SuperBlackhawk revolver for defensive,
anti-personnel applications, unless loaded with .44 special rounds.
Even then, the barrel is uncomfortably long.
I prefer the 2 inch barrel of my .44 special revolver, instead.

Quote:
Then he could stalk the "criminals" in their natural habitat.

1 ) I have no desire to stalk.
It surprizes me that u think I want to stalk.
We have police to stalk criminals.
I don 't get paid for that.
I 'm too old, fat, ugly and lazy for that.

2 ) What is their natural habitat ??

Quote:
A three round burst from any range inside 150 yards
would blow up their heads like a watermelon hit by a 50 cal. slug.

IMO, its not likely that his head wud get hit by all 3 rounds
at that range.
U 'd be better advised to aim for central body mass
at that range.
In any case, I see no reason to engage at that distance
against a common criminal.
It 'd be more likely, at point blank range.

Quote:
Then he could slip away, and head back home where other gun nuts would be waiting, playing poker, and prepared to alibi him. I'd advise, though, that he not stroke his hard-on until he gets home, so he can get away clean.

This is only sick-minded fantasy, Mr. Setanta.
It has no basis in reality.

It is very, very unusual for any gun lover to act like that;
almost unheard of to go stalking criminals.

I certainly wud not trouble myself to do it.
I 'd rather just go meet my friends at a fine restaurant,
or post here, or enjoy my 7 foot Hi Definition TV
for the Science Channel or the History Channel
or National Geographic Channel or the Military Channel,
or Discovery Channel, etc.

David

0 Replies

Guns and the Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know