SuzukiSavage.com - I propose we define 'assault weapon'

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #105 - 12/30/12 at 14:41:47

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/30/12 at 10:49:26:

Srinath said

The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols.

Ive been Waiting for this piece of PUKE argument. Nothing gets my hackles up more quickly. The "logic" used to put this together invites ad hominem like no other. NOt realizing your argument actually makes the argument for MORE & Bigger Guns in the hands of the People!

BUT, you want to nullify the right to what defense we have, Because its INsufficient@! Thats INSANITY.. Thats like saying "Well,, that car is so little, if ya get in a wreck, youre sure to die, therefor, you are not allowed to wear your seatblet, because its insufficient to save you",,

& YOU THINK YOURE Making SENSE!!@! Its Lunacy!

Dude you will never get yourself a nuclear bomb. You cant get yourself a drone, you cant get a tank, you cant get an aircraft carrier, you cant ... 1000's of things you cant get.

Yes you can get a mac 10/12 whatever. You want to buy a tank ? a drone ? daisy cutters ? Actually those are saver than a mac 10. I'd be all for that ... you're never gonna sneak a tank into a school ...

Seriously, and really you should not have the right to ever own a tank or a drone etc ... it was intellectual property developed by the government on their dime. Of course you can try to develop your own, probably most patents on it have long expired. Nuclear stuff is never patented, its a trade secret and ther is a huge control on the materials ... you'd never be able to get enough material to build one. In fact that is a good thing, great thing, else Iran and N Korea will be awash in the crap by now.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #106 - 12/30/12 at 14:46:11

WebsterMark wrote on 12/30/12 at 05:11:17:

The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols.

Srinath;

I believe if this discussion were about the Bush lead invasion of Afganstan, you'd remind us how we should have known better than to think our military might would easily carry the day. You'd remind us how the tribal Afgans armed with pea-shooters kept the Soviet Union's tanks at bay until they gave up and left. If we were discussing Iraq, you'd point out how we're wasting billions of dollars in a war we can never, ever win.

It's amazing what a group of people fighting for their freedom and their lives can do with a few guns....

Dude, we were not trying to conquer afghanisthan, we can level afghanisthan in 20 min flat. As big as it is, I believe its bigger than CA ... yea 20 min.
We were, and still are trying to build a nation out of a collection of tribes. We won the war long ago, we are after that trying to win the peace.

We are not being outgunned, we are being out manuvered, and we still have 1/100th the casualties.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13891

Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #107 - 12/30/12 at 15:01:40

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the USA Patriot Act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a godd*amn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a godd*amned piece of paper!”

i'm 100% positive that did not happen.

And I think you and siriath are missing the point about an armed citizenry. Any argument about what the founders intended the 2nd amendment is about is moot as much writings of the day clearly layed out what their intension was. See the quote below I read this morning from an early Supreme Court justice appointed by Jefferson. The meaning was always to give the citizens the ability to arm themselves and if need be, to use them against their own government.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Back to top

IP Logged

LANCER

Serious Thumper
Alliance Member

Offline

Savage Beast
Performance Parts

Posts: 10801
Oklahoma
Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #108 - 12/30/12 at 17:24:41

Starlifter wrote on 12/30/12 at 13:04:50:

BTW, No offence but actually our rights came from the founding fathers in the form of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not from God.

IT IS WRITTEN ... (this is just the intro.)

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
.......

It is evident when reading the Declaration of Independence that the Founding Fathers fully understood that all rights originated with/from God.

Back to top

IP Logged

Starlifter

Serious Thumper

Offline

It only snows seven
months of the year
here.

Posts: 3746
Eastern Michigan
Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #109 - 12/30/12 at 17:42:16

"The meaning was always to give the citizens the ability to arm themselves and if need be, to use them against their own government."

Broken record....over and over and over...

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers."

The "militia" is like the National Guard. Not a GD bunch of nuts stocking up on 30 guns and 10 thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Oh really??...ALL men?...tell that to the slaves and the north American Indians of the times.

Back to top

Proud to be everything the right-wing hates.

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #110 - 12/30/12 at 18:25:28

WebsterMark wrote on 12/30/12 at 15:01:40:

And I think you and siriath are missing the point about an armed citizenry. Any argument about what the founders intended the 2nd amendment is about is moot as much writings of the day clearly layed out what their intension was. See the quote below I read this morning from an early Supreme Court justice appointed by Jefferson. The meaning was always to give the citizens the ability to arm themselves and if need be, to use them against their own government.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

I love this ... You do realise this is about dissolving the military during times of peace right and keep militia with arms to keep the government from turning tyrannical ... I mean, the same military the Bushies used not 1 time, but on 3 different ocassions ...

You see the obvious contradiction in that dont you ?

OK Fine disband the military. Then we can get the second amendment in place. As it stands its irrelevant now since the military does exist now.

And no peace does not mean peace everywhere in the world. If the Hutu's and tutsi's are fighting in central africa, its not a time of war.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2

Serious Thumper

Offline

What happened?

Posts: 55279
East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #111 - 12/30/12 at 18:34:32

srinath wrote on 12/30/12 at 14:41:47:

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/30/12 at 10:49:26:

Srinath said

The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols.

Ive been Waiting for this piece of PUKE argument. Nothing gets my hackles up more quickly. The "logic" used to put this together invites ad hominem like no other. NOt realizing your argument actually makes the argument for MORE & Bigger Guns in the hands of the People!

BUT, you want to nullify the right to what defense we have, Because its INsufficient@! Thats INSANITY.. Thats like saying "Well,, that car is so little, if ya get in a wreck, youre sure to die, therefor, you are not allowed to wear your seatblet, because its insufficient to save you",,

& YOU THINK YOURE Making SENSE!!@! Its Lunacy!

Dude you will never get yourself a nuclear bomb. You cant get yourself a drone, you cant get a tank, you cant get an aircraft carrier, you cant ... 1000's of things you cant get.

Yes you can get a mac 10/12 whatever. You want to buy a tank ? a drone ? daisy cutters ? Actually those are saver than a mac 10. I'd be all for that ... you're never gonna sneak a tank into a school ...

Seriously, and really you should not have the right to ever own a tank or a drone etc ... it was intellectual property developed by the government on their dime. Of course you can try to develop your own, probably most patents on it have long expired. Nuclear stuff is never patented, its a trade secret and ther is a huge control on the materials ... you'd never be able to get enough material to build one. In fact that is a good thing, great thing, else Iran and N Korea will be awash in the crap by now.

Cool.
Srinath.

Seriously, and really you should not have the right to ever own a tank or a drone etc ... it was intellectual property developed by the government on their dime

On THEIR dime? Excuse me? & Just exactly WHERE do OUR servants get Their Money? Thats MY dime & the fact that you dont get that explains a great deal about your goob apologist positions. Oh, & YOure WRONG about what I Should have the right to own, that its not possible doesnt remove the intellectual acknowledgement of my right. I know, the depth of the concept strains the masses, especially those who cant grasp the concept of Libertarianism.

Back to top

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke.

IP Logged

houstonbofh

Senior Member

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 420
Houston, TX
Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #112 - 12/30/12 at 19:11:31

srinath wrote on 12/30/12 at 14:41:47:

Dude you will never get yourself a nuclear bomb. You cant get yourself a drone, you cant get a tank, you cant get an aircraft carrier, you cant ... 1000's of things you cant get.

Really?

Nuke, step one. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/06/23/clothing-designer-builds-nuclear-react...

Drone, entire community... http://diydrones.com/

Tank, just the best example... Talk about style! http://www.france24.com/en/20121209-sham-ii-new-fighting-machine-syria-rebels

Aircraft carrier... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919689/posts

Stock it with these... http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-01-27_mig29.asp

Back to top

IP Logged

Gyrobob Serious Thumper Offline Posers ain't motorcyclists Posts: 2571 Newnan, GA Gender:	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #113 - 12/30/12 at 19:33:40 A so-called "assault weapon" as referred to by the SCHLIB and his lackeys is nothing more than an ordinary small-game semi-auto rifle in a Rambo costume.
Back to top	If you think there's good in everyone, you haven't met everyone. IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #114 - 12/31/12 at 01:07:47

houstonbofh wrote on 12/30/12 at 19:11:31:

srinath wrote on 12/30/12 at 14:41:47:

Dude you will never get yourself a nuclear bomb. You cant get yourself a drone, you cant get a tank, you cant get an aircraft carrier, you cant ... 1000's of things you cant get.

Really?

Nuke, step one. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/06/23/clothing-designer-builds-nuclear-react...

Drone, entire community... http://diydrones.com/

Tank, just the best example... Talk about style! http://www.france24.com/en/20121209-sham-ii-new-fighting-machine-syria-rebels

Aircraft carrier... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919689/posts

Stock it with these... http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-01-27_mig29.asp

Dude ... 1. Nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb. You should know that, I think its the same difference that tripped up that other texan ... Bush.
The drones are becoming more common yes, however no way are they even close to the military drones. Useful nonetheless.
Aircraft carrier - that 4.5 million one has been on ebay a few years. No big deal, however it is far from useable. You could buy it, and help your second amendment argument.
Mig's have been on sale a few years now, India has a few and are buying more. So as soon as you get all of these, you can get the mac10's.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

MShipley Serious Thumper Offline SuzukiSavage.com Rocks! Posts: 681	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #115 - 12/31/12 at 06:23:55 Quote: BTW, No offence but actually our rights came from the founding fathers in the form of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not from God. BTW, No offence but this IS the problem.
Back to top	IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #116 - 12/31/12 at 10:37:53 Ohh,, Me! Me! Dont forget to explain why IM wrong,, Srinath,, do tell me where the government gets its $$$..
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #117 - 12/31/12 at 10:46:35

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/31/12 at 10:37:53:

Ohh,, Me! Me! Dont forget to explain why IM wrong,, Srinath,, do tell me where the government gets its $$$..

Dude, the govt gets $ form the people, however that is not you and you alone.
For every nutcase that wants the govt to turn over their research secrets to any gun nut that wants to start a militia, there is 10 people that dont want the govt to do that.

As in, its not just your $, its my $ too, and I really really really want it locked up.
Oh yea ... you gave them the $$$ knowing these are "defence secrets" ... if you didn't want to, then why did you ?

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

justin_o_guy2 Serious Thumper Offline What happened? Posts: 55279 East Texas, 1/2 dallas/la.	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #118 - 12/31/12 at 14:08:42 YOu call that an answer? Thats blather, not even close to the point,, but, Im not wasing more time on you.. youve made your position clear. Goobs are the Sovereign to you, not the People.,
Back to top	The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.- Edmund Burke. IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #119 - 12/31/12 at 15:30:52

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/31/12 at 14:08:42:

YOu call that an answer? Thats blather, not even close to the point,, but, Im not wasing more time on you.. youve made your position clear. Goobs are the Sovereign to you, not the People.,

Oh yea I guess you dont have any more glib comebacks then ... Why not, the time honoured "without guns there will be more nuclears in the hands of government ... or the recently acclaimed "ping pongs will run amuck and kill millions wihtout guns" ...

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged