why Kerry is going to lose

Quote from Pabst:

Possession should be my God given right.
More...

I don't want an argument on this one Pabst. I would like an explanation though.

As an aside, I bet in Chicago, just as in NYC, you can still legally buy a gun with 18th century technology. Just as the the Bill of Rights intended (though not because of a "God given right").

Anyway, is an explanation of your position possible without an argumentative tone? I really would be interested in WHY you believe there should be a "God given right" to own a handgun. (Not just a weapon....specifically a handgun).

OK, I am anxiously waiting. This should be interesting. Jesus was a pacifist. The right wing loves Jesus and they love guns. I want to know how these things fit together. Really.

Also, in Chicago, you CAN own a rifle. Isn't a rifle a better weapon than a handgun to fight off terrorists or revolutionaries, or an oppressive government, or to use in a "civil war" as you mentioned...like if Illinois needs to go to war with Indiana?

Peace,
:)RS
 
Quote from Error 404:
Also, in Chicago, you CAN own a rifle. Isn't a rifle a better weapon than a handgun to fight off terrorists or revolutionaries, or an oppressive government, or to use in a "civil war" as you mentioned...like if Illinois needs to go to war with Indiana?
More...
You're right - you need a couple of 9mm handguns with double wide mags, an MP5 or M16, and a semi-auto shotgun outfitted with a drum mag. A few grenades would be good too. :)
 
Quote from Error 404:

I don't want an argument on this one Pabst. I would like an explanation though.

As an aside, I bet in Chicago, just as in NYC, you can still legally buy a gun with 18th century technology. Just as the the Bill of Rights intended (though not because of a "God given right").

18th Century? Pretty asinine Constitutional argument. Can I own a pre 1863 slave? Does the 1st amendment exclude the electronic media. Must I speak King's English for equal protection under the law?

Anyway, is an explanation of your position possible without an argumentative tone? I really would be interested in WHY you believe there should be a "God given right" to own a handgun. (Not just a weapon....specifically a handgun).

Operative word handy. Do I have to walk home from the Subway with a musket?

OK, I am anxiously waiting. This should be interesting. Jesus was a pacifist. The right wing loves Jesus and they love guns. I want to know how these things fit together. Really.

No place in scripture does it say I can't blast a home intruder between the eyes.

Also, in Chicago, you CAN own a rifle. Isn't a rifle a better weapon than a handgun to fight off terrorists or revolutionaries, or an oppressive government, or to use in a "civil war" as you mentioned...like if Illinois needs to go to war with Indiana?

Who's to say an oppressive government couldn't take over by non-democratic means. (and save the one-liners about 2000 Florida)Or a race war? Bottom line: why should I have to JUSTIFY why I want to possess a firearm. I don't tell people they can't smoke a joint in bed and I don't want anyone telling me I can't keep a revolver on my bed stand.

Peace,
:)RS
More...
 
Quote from Pabst:

Actually, that's not the worst idea I've ever heard. I always dig States rights arguments. But as George Will said, "On September 11th, 250 million Americans were deputized."
My gripe with draconian gun laws is that I can neither expect nor demand that the police be able to save my ass in the case of emergency. Here in Chicago handguns are prohibited....but you guessed it, Chicago STILL leads the nation in homicides(we've battled L.A. for the title the past few years). Also I don't discount the notion that someday American's could be in revolution or Civil War. Stranger shit has happened. If I stick someone up, give me twenty years. Possession should be my God given right.
More...

THe ability to throw a left hook and kick someone in the balls are God given possessions; I don't see how the Almighty grants rights to firearms though.

A contemporary civil war or revolution? What stranger shit has happened than that?
 
Quote from dgabriel:

THe ability to throw a left hook and kick someone in the balls are God given possessions; I don't see how the Almighty grants rights to firearms though.

A contemporary civil war or revolution? What stranger shit has happened than that?
More...

Well we did see a Civil War here. The idea of a group of State's someday seceding over a currency crash or something fiscal is not all that remote.

What if Californians had one of their famous Propositions that stated:"We the people of the Golden State who have our OWN fiscal/tax problems, our OWN world class economy, who are seperated by ocean, desert and mountains from everyone else hereby proclaim FUCK Washington D.C. we are now on our own."

Suddendly your humble neighborhood in the Valley is like
Vicksburg.
 
Why do liberals hate law-abiding people so much? Why do they despise people who play by the rules, act responsibly and want to provide for their own retirement, health care and self-defense? The hallmark of almost every liberal program is punishing those who are responsible and productive for the supposed benefit of those who willfully act in socially undesirable ways. Of course the actual benefits never seem to materialize, but liberals bask in moral superiority, even as they seize greater and greater control over people's lives.

Self defense of one's family, home and property is a moral imperative that no government has the right to take away. Our Founder's recognized this of course and provided not only strong protection for property rights but also thought they had ensured everyone's right to defend their home and, if the need arose, their country. Leave it to the same people who can find clear vindication of rights to abortion and homosexual sex in the Constitution to try to distort the Second Amendment beyond recognition.

The gun control arguments make no logical sense, and it is perfectly obvious that they are nothing but a pretext because liberals don't approve of private gun ownership. For example, would anyone argue with a straight face that the right to freedom of the press only applied to the type of printing presses in use at the time the First Amendment was adopted? Has the Court ever limited the term "the people" anywhere else in the Constitution?
 
Quote from Pabst:

Well we did see a Civil War here. The idea of a group of State's someday seceding over a currency crash or something fiscal is not all that remote.

What if Californians had one of their famous Propositions that stated:"We the people of the Golden State who have our OWN fiscal/tax problems, our OWN world class economy, who are seperated by ocean, desert and mountains from everyone else hereby proclaim FUCK Washington D.C. we are now on our own."

Suddendly your humble neighborhood in the Valley is like
Vicksburg.
More...

As a New Yorker, I encourage such a proposition wholeheartedly!:D
 
Quote from dgabriel:

As a New Yorker, I encourage such a proposition wholeheartedly!:D
More...

LOL. You and me both. I suspect an earthquake will be their surest route to succession though.:)
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Why do liberals hate law-abiding people so much? Why do they despise people who play by the rules, act responsibly and want to provide for their own retirement, health care and self-defense? The hallmark of almost every liberal program is punishing those who are responsible and productive for the supposed benefit of those who willfully act in socially undesirable ways. Of course the actual benefits never seem to materialize, but liberals bask in moral superiority, even as they seize greater and greater control over people's lives.

Self defense of one's family, home and property is a moral imperative that no government has the right to take away. Our Founder's recognized this of course and provided not only strong protection for property rights but also thought they had ensured everyone's right to defend their home and, if the need arose, their country. Leave it to the same people who can find clear vindication of rights to abortion and homosexual sex in the Constitution to try to distort the Second Amendment beyond recognition.

The gun control arguments make no logical sense, and it is perfectly obvious that they are nothing but a pretext because liberals don't approve of private gun ownership. For example, would anyone argue with a straight face that the right to freedom of the press only applied to the type of printing presses in use at the time the First Amendment was adopted? Has the Court ever limited the term "the people" anywhere else in the Constitution?
More...

Here is a fine example of Conservative sophistry.

"Why do Liberals hate law abiding people so much?" Asks AAA, as though it is a fact

The answer, They don't hate them at all and he knows it.

Self Defense is a natural right. This fact is so basic it is not even in the realm of the political spectrum, and AAA knows it.

Suddenly, the AAArch Conservative is breathing organic life into the Constitution with his First Amendment printing press type analogy, but this is quite at odds with the Conservative constructionist constitutional doctrine. Further, the analogy strictly applied to arms places no limits on arms ownership whatsoever. Firepower technology is irrelevant under this argument. You can own a nuke for self protection.

What is the connection between promoting the second amendment and homosexual sex anyway? THe court never said that there was a right to homosexual sex per se, just that the state had no right to restrict it. There's a big difference. Rights in a democratic republuic are assumed, unless forbidden. If Pabst has the god given right to own a gun, an artifact, why don't you AAA, have the God given right to insert your cock in his rectum?
 
Quote from dgabriel:

Here is a fine example of Conservative sophistry.

"Why do Liberals hate law abiding people so much?" Asks AAA, as though it is a fact

The answer, They don't hate them at all and he knows it.

Self Defense is a natural right. This fact is so basic it is not even in the realm of the political spectrum, and AAA knows it.

Suddenly, the AAArch Conservative is breathing organic life into the Constitution with his First Amendment printing press type analogy, but this is quite at odds with the Conservative constructionist constitutional doctrine. Further, the analogy strictly applied to arms places no limits on arms ownership whatsoever. Firepower technology is irrelevant under this argument. You can own a nuke for self protection.

What is the connection between promoting the second amendment and homosexual sex anyway? THe court never said that there was a right to homosexual sex per se, just that the state had no right to restrict it. There's a big difference. Rights in a democratic republuic are assumed, unless forbidden. If Pabst has the god given right to own a gun, an artifact, why don't you AAA, have the God given right to insert your cock in his rectum?
More...

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY

NOBODY not even a great Patriot like my pal AAA will be inserting cock anywhere near an orifice of Pabst's!

The point your missing DG is that of reasonable extrapolation. The Framers clearly could not conceive of briefcase held dirty bombs. Just as Congress prohibited the Gatling gun after the turn of the century, machine guns in the 1930's and many automatic weapons in the 1980's there is clear precedent-rightfully so-for limiting the rights afforded in the 2nd amendment. Likewise, as we're all aware from 4th grade on, yelling fire in a movie theatre is not protected by the 1st amendment.

However the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment is clear.
Popular firearms, i.e. rifles, shotguns and revolvers have existed for centuries. Anyone who dares believe that the Framers would have advocated the illegality of a 38 snubnose is a judicial activist. C'mon, Alexander Hamilton killed Aaron Burr in a DUEL. Fittingly in Jersey. Same stuff still happens over there today. Besides the clear unconstitutionality of handgun prohibition, the effects as a crime deterrence mechanism are dubious. If criminals aren't deterred by ten year sentences for armed robbery I fail to believe that relative wrist slapping for mere firearm possession will achieve a "gunless" society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top