2
   

Mexico Calls On the US to Violate Our Constitutional Gun Rights

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 06:21 am
@failures art,

Prohibition was and is a wonderful financial boon to illegal suppliers.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 06:34 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't disagree.

A
R
T
fbaezer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:53 am
I don`t disagree either- At least David is coherent on this matter.

Unlike others, who are only driven by a nationalistic sense of superiority.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:00 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
You're not making any sense here.

Your right to own firearms does not trump any other right, less so the rights other have to be alive.


That is incorrect. My right (actually the right of all Americans -- not trying to imply I get special rights) to have assault weapons trumps everything else.



failures art wrote:
The fact that gangs will get weapons elsewhere is a lame poit as well. As is, they choose to get their weapons from us because it is the easiest and cheapest way.


I doubt it is any easier and really doubt it is cheaper. What is the price of a full auto AK-47 in South America? $50?? Less?



failures art wrote:
The point here should be to make it as difficualt as possible to obtain these kinds of weapons.


That would violate the Constitution.



failures art wrote:
Americans would not be giving up freedom by putting the ban in effect. That's such a vacant statement.


Violating the most important of our Constitutional rights would be giving up freedom.



failures art wrote:
If the inability to own an assault rifle is tantamount to a loss of freedom, then how did freedom exist prior to the assault rifle? If this is the case, then we aren't free until the invention of the laser rifle! This is silly.


We have the right to have modern weapons no matter what time period we are in.

If laser rifles come into existence and they make regular guns obsolete, people will have the right to have them.



failures art wrote:
You do not need the ability to buy an assault rifle to be free.


It is central to the definition of freedom.



failures art wrote:
Your disregaurd for the lives of the Mexicans caught in these violent bloodbaths is chilling.

A
R
T


My freedom is more important than they are.

However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:31 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

I don't disagree.

A
R
T


I too oppose the war on drugs. It has the same counterproductive result that prohibition had. And unlike prohibition (which was authorized by a Constitutional amendment), the federal government has no legitimate authority to outlaw drugs that never cross state lines.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 08:11 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:55 pm
@failures art,
oralloy wrote:
However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.
failures art wrote:
This confidence is your first error.
The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding
of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T
U have no idea whereof u speak.
U just emote. Is that good in an engineer ?
I don 't think so.





David
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Compared to what you've produced as a lawyer, he does pretty well for an engineer.

As I've mentioned before, Om, you sounded like a Georgia cracker when I first read you and things haven't gotten much better since.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 06:56 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
oralloy wrote:
However, I am confident that my freedom is not actually causing them harm.

This confidence is your first error. The errors that follow it are mostly in your misunderstanding of the US constitution and on the definition of "freedom."

A
R
T


There is zero chance that I've misunderstood the Constitution.

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.

Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 08:05 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.


This is doubtful. By stopping the easy trade of guns across the border, you increase there cost. The more it costs to get an assault weapon, the fewer there will be.

An equally important thing to do is decrease the amount of Americans buying drugs from the drug gangs. Less American funding for drug gangs, also means less money to buy guns.

hamburgboy
 
  6  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 08:14 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.


the mexican drug lords will be pleased to hear that they are being permitted to carry guns - i'm sure they consider themselves to be " free " people .
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 08:21 pm
@JTT,
David recently insulted me for what he perceives as my lack of intelligence. Wow! Would I want David, whose only cause is arming every man, woman and child to find me intelligent???!!! Absolutely not!

I do not believe David was a lawyer not do I believe he is a member of Mensa.

I do notice that David and okie both rebelled against their parents, described as Roosevelt Republicans, and are still in rebellion as senior citizens.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 08:24 pm
@failures art,
Actually, no right trumps another. When two rights are in conflict, one is not a right.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 10:23 pm
@plainoldme,
So he's a Georgia cracker then. Smile
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 10:48 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
David recently insulted me for what he perceives as my lack of intelligence.
I am not sure whether I 'm in error about that; its possible that sometimes u r just lazy enuf
to hurl around short, emotional remarks with no demonstrated factual basis, but that if u cared,
u might be able to offer some kind of factual argument.
I don 't know u well enuf to be able to judge that.
If u have a master's degree, then there is a decent chance
that u r not really as dum as u appear to be (sometimes) on this board.
It coud be possible that maybe u r just pretending to be that dum.
Maybe u r faking it. Its hard to tell.

C'mon, Plain! Tell us the truth: r u really that dum or r u a faker ?



plainoldme wrote:
Wow! Would I want David, whose only cause is arming every man, woman and child to find me intelligent???!!!
Absolutely not!

I do not believe David was a lawyer not do I believe he is a member of Mensa.
Your skepticism is sterile, devoid of effect; harmless.
Your admiration has no value and I refuse to invite u to any Mensa dinners!






plainoldme wrote:
I do notice that David and okie both rebelled against their parents,
What rebellion is that??
There was nothing to rebel against.
I lived my life in freedom; no reason to rebel.



plainoldme wrote:
described as Roosevelt Republicans
Thay were not Republicans b4 I convinced them to be.
Tho I coud not dissuade them from supporting Roosevelt, nor Truman in 1948,
it was ez to get them both to vote for Ike in 1952 and Nixon in 1960.
I loathed Kennedy, worse than Truman, tho I suported his impeachment for relieving MacArthur.




plainoldme wrote:
and are still in rebellion as senior citizens.
Against WHAT??





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 10:54 pm
@hamburgboy,
hamburgboy wrote:
Quote:
Free people have the right to carry guns. There is no error there.


the mexican drug lords will be pleased to hear that they are being permitted to carry guns -
i'm sure they consider themselves to be " free " people .
Obviously.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 11:05 pm
oralloy, I'm sure somewhere in the AMERICAN Constitution it says that arming MEXICAN drug lords is an inalienable right of all Americans. I just can't find it. Do you think you could tell me what clause it is? I know you're a profound scholar of American rights, so I'm sure you can tell me off the top of your head.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 11:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
it was ez to get them both to vote for Ike in 1952 and Nixon in 1960.


Of course it was, Om, you had guns.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 11:18 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
The odds that I've made any error on the question of "whether our freedom harms anyone" are extremely slight in light of the fact that drugs gangs would have just as many assault rifles even without the US and the fact that they would kill just as many people even without assault weapons.
ebrown p wrote:
This is doubtful.
Your doubt comes only from your ignorance of the applicable facts.

Drug profits that result from the HUGE American subsidy
that resulted from the American Prohibition can easily be applied
to acquire many tons of AK 47s (crude impliments going for about $12 in Moslem bazaars)
OR
having domestic gunsmiths make them. Its not hard, nor does it take long.





ebrown p wrote:
By stopping the easy trade of guns across the border, you increase there cost.
Do Mexicans have the requisite intelligence to MAKE AK 47s, Mr. Brown?

or is that ability confined to Russians, Chinese and Moslems? hhhhmmmmmm?? Please enlighten us.






ebrown p wrote:
The more it costs to get an assault weapon, the fewer there will be.
Is a Mexican able to be a gunsmith, Mr. Brown?
Is a Mexican able ONLY to import from America??
Will u tell us, Mr. Brown, if u believe that the Mexicans r unnaturally impaired
as to their mental versatility or resourcefulness???????

that thay can neither import nor make simple automatic weapons, UNLESS Americans help them ??

Is that what u think ?







ebrown p wrote:
An equally important thing to do is decrease the amount of Americans buying drugs from the drug gangs.
Less American funding for drug gangs, also means less money to buy guns.
U appear to think that the Mexicans r helpless and can do nothing unless we babysit them.

I take a different vu.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 11:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
oralloy, I'm sure somewhere in the AMERICAN Constitution it says that arming MEXICAN drug lords is an inalienable right of all Americans. I just can't find it. Do you think you could tell me what clause it is? I know you're a profound scholar of American rights, so I'm sure you can tell me off the top of your head.
The 2nd Amendment and the 9th Amendment divest government of ANY jurisdiction
to interfere or to become involved in matters of personal armament.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/24/2020 at 09:11:55