Aw, COME ON!!111!!!

If the right of the people means the rights of individuals in the 1st,4th, 9th and 10th amendments, whay does it not also mean rights of indiviuals in the 2nd? WTF?

And the second amendment does not state the right to bear arms is contingent upon the existence of the militia--it says the the existence of the militia is contingent upon the right to keep and bear arms, and the existence of the militia is essential to the secuity of a free state.

Do you belong to a militia? What will you do when the revolution comes?

j/k - I agree wholeheartedly.

I actually do belong to a militia--and if I recall correctly, so do you. Most likely the exact same one.

Well, you're telling me that the founding fathers, the people who didn't trust the general populace (note we don't have a pure democracy), wanted every mouthbreather at that time to have guns?

nocal:
'Well, you're telling me that the founding fathers, the people who didn't trust the general populace (note we don't have a pure democracy), wanted every mouthbreather at that time to have guns?'

No. I'm saying that as a matter of course, every mouthbreather had a right to have guns.

The founding father's notions of rights were a bit different from our notions now, where if you have a right to something, you can force others to give it to you without qualification.

Taking away the right to bear arms will not stop criminals from bearing arms themselves. If you want to take my firearms away, you'd better replace them with a full-time cop.

And don't tell me that they could just increase the size of our police force. They always show up AFTER the crime has been committed, which is of little consequence if you're DEAD.

Law means nothing when you're dead.

Law means nothing to evil.

I like how you automatically assume that since you own a gun, you have the balls to shoot another human being with it.

I like how you have automatically assumed that once someone owns a gun they become possed of a secret wish to shoot someone with it--balls or not.

I don't get why this is a law in DC. It seems like an excuse to arrest anybody who lives in a crappy neighborhood and needs a hand gun for protection.

Lot's of politicians in DC. Politicians afraid of governing an armed citizenry. Politicians whose actions would get them shot in polite company if that polite company were armed--let alone crappy neighbor hoods-- is the guess I have regarding why this is law in DC.

Thankfully, because we have over 200 million firearms in America, I'm not too worried of The Man coming and taking them all away. Also, in this month's Harpers Magazine, there is a great article on how guns helped the civil rights movement. Check it out.

This has already happened in a more forceful and in my opinion, unconstitutional way.

pew pew!

I like how you have automatically assumed that once someone owns a gun they become possed of a secret wish to shoot someone with it--balls or not.
I don't see your problem dude. somebodyelse implied that if someone was gonna commit a crime towards him, he'd shot him. I never said anyone had a 'secret wish to shoot someone'. All I said was its easy to act hard, but not so easy to actually be hard.

Maybe if we outlawed guns, people would at least stop being such fat fucks, having to actually fight or run away.

Outlaw Guns and only the Outlaws will have them.

That is what has happened here.

Don't let it happen to you.

mofo:
'x don't see your problem dude. somebodyelse implied that if someone was gonna commit a crime towards him, he'd shot him.'

No one made such implication in this thread.

So there's the beginning of your delusion.

mofo:
'I never said anyone had a 'secret wish to shoot someone'. '

No, you didn't, but you're the one who is all on about implication; and your response regarding having the balls to shoot someone can certainly be construed to imply the wish to shoot someone.

So if you weant to know what my problem is, it's not that you shoot from the hip, we all do;

it's not that you shoot from the hip with a bunch of poorly considered dumb, it happens to all of us on occaision;

and believe it or not, it's not that you manage so fuking often to shoot yourself with your own dumb, that's entertaining.

So you see, there's no problem--that's the end of your delusion.

^^ 'Outlaw Guns and only the Outlaws will have them.'

Hooray! It only took eighteen posts for somone to regurgitate this particularly useess bumper-sticker. Actually, that's quite a bit longer than I would expected from this group, but I suppose it was the weekend and all...

When will people realize... If nail guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to frame houses efficiently.

Also, if guns don't kill people, but people do, then I say people should be illegal. Show me where the constitution guarentees the right to have people? Hmm? Think about it...

sidechain:
'^^ 'Outlaw Guns and only the Outlaws will have them.'

Hooray! It only took eighteen posts for somone to regurgitate this particularly useess bumper-sticker. Actually, that's quite a bit longer than I would expected from this group, but I suppose it was the weekend and all...

When will people realize... If nail guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to frame houses efficiently.

Also, if guns don't kill people, but people do, then I say people should be illegal. Show me where the constitution guarentees the right to have people? Hmm? Think about it...

This is some exceptionally virulent dumb.

I SALUTE YOU!

Just trying to fit into the spirit of the thread...

For my next trick; the famed Hitler reference (complete with multiple exclamation points). Ready? Here we go:

YOU'RE ALL NAZI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End of Thread.

You know, it seems that the people who are all about 'rights' regarding gun ownership are exactly the people who never use them for actual self defense, but for hunting. Yet these people insist that when the government comes to get them in the middle of their rural compound, they'll have a hunting rifle and therefore avoid whatever the government would do to them.

But the people who really need handguns for self defense, the poorest of poor motherfuckers, probably get them illegally anyway. And I don't think they know dick about their constitutionally granted rights. Are the Crips a militia?

Bzzzzt! Foul!

Rational thought not allowed after nazi reference.

15 yards. First down.

nocal:
'You know, it seems that the people who are all about 'rights' regarding gun ownership are exactly the people who never use them for actual self defense, but for hunting. '

Relevence?

nocal:
'Yet these people insist that when the government comes to get them in the middle of their rural compound, they'll have a hunting rifle and therefore avoid whatever the government would do to them.'

I don't think they're saying this. I think you're making this up.

nocal:
'But the people who really need handguns for self defense, the poorest of poor motherfuckers, probably get them illegally anyway.'

Your point being, '...therefore we need more gun control laws'?

nocal:
'And I don't think they know dick about their constitutionally granted rights. Are the Crips a militia?'

Relevence?

It is so weird being on loki's side of the debate. I tend to think he's a crackpot psycho on everything else, who prefers to pick apart people's diction and syntax without addressing the arguments, but all of a sudden it appears like he's weillding the shotgun of truth amid a dogmatic zombie horde.

Is it... is it possible that some of my arguments make as little sense as the anti-gun control arguments put forth here?

all of a sudden it appears like he's weillding the shotgun of truth amid a dogmatic zombie horde.

Perhaps you've just broken through the wall of his typing style, because what you're describing is pretty much every day for me. Getting to see it play out online is less magic than in real life, though.

i prefer to think of loki as a shotgun-wielding zombie.

motherfucker's relentless.

Now I LOL at dinoza, and shed a tear of joy at all three of you.

Loki, I figured if no one was being relevant, I might as well not either.

:(