Page 4 of 40 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 595

Thread: U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment

  1. #46

    Arrow Ablarc's Sunday Dinner


  2. #47

    Default

    ^ You beat me to it. I was fixin' to eat crow, but you got there before me. I would have apologized more elaborately if you hadn't.

    So you'll have to settle for "Sorry, my bad."

    The point about overzealous moderating remains valid.

  3. #48

    Default

    You can delete the apology altogether. I'd much rather read about how you're going to tackle down that bird.

  4. #49

    Default

    Bird flew the coop.

  5. #50
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Abl, she set that up for you.

    Why would someone who authored the thread need to notify herself that she changed the title?

  6. #51

    Default

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
    -Thomas Jefferson

  7. #52
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Whatever J.

    I know you have a lot of good points, and better quotes, but the simple fact of the matter is, the people would not be able to stand with our current military as it is. This is not the same US that the founding fathers started with, planned for or ever imagined.

    In order to get back to that, we need to start breaking up the power centers and make this a set of united States, rather than a federal democracy that is sliding slowly towards imperialism.

    If we can get the power back in the states, back TO the people, then maybe John Doe having an assault rifle or semi-automatic handgun will mean a bit more.

  8. #53

    Default

    "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
    -Thomas Jefferson

  9. #54
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
    -Thomas Jefferson
    That's kind of what I was talking about J.

    We have to fix the root of the problem first before we worry about the little things.

  10. #55

    Default

    Iniuria non excusat iniuriam

  11. #56

    Default Ninja, your post second-guessing my motives was factually incorrect

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel
    This thread's title was changed from:
    Bolstering the Database on Gun Buyers
    to:
    U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Abl, she set that up for you.
    Because of problems with my relatives, I have had a long-time interest in seeing to it that nonviolent people who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities never get on the FBI's NCIC system. I have been fighting my Congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy, on this since 2002. I started this thread with the express interest of discusussing the 2007 bill; this is a fact of which many people are aware.

    It became apparent, however, that other members wished to discuss the broader implications of government databases, gun control, the Second Amendment, and civil liberties. I changed the name of the thread to accomodate the broader interests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Why would someone who authored the thread need to notify herself that she changed the title?
    I was not notifying myself, I was notifying all the of the other participants in this thread, including future participants.


    Ninja, I would appreciate if you question my motives in a PM, rather than second-guessing them publicly on a message board.

  12. #57
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Rap. The reason why you generally say that a threads name has been changed is to notify the originator.

    The way you stated it was no "I changed the title of MY post , etc etc, you used the same language you used when you changed mine, and others, hence the confusion.

    Why are you getting so defensive all of a sudden? You do not like being cajoled?


    As for the "Ones wrongs do not justify another's" J, it does not apply here. Even in Latin. Giving a bunch of people the right to have handguns and saying that it is based upon a reasoning that is no longer valid is not a valid chain of logic.

    You must first validate the reason, THEN get the other pieces into effect. I believe it will be harder to get states rights back than it would be to get gun ownership rights, ESPECIALLY AFTER STATES RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED. (in the case of gun ownership).

    SO if the main reason the right to bear arms was for the security of our individual sovereignty as individuals and local municipalities, that is no longer valid in the light of our growing federal power.

    If we can get the military back into the hands, primarily, of the people that comprise it, then maybe the right to bear arms will have more meaning.

  13. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    As for the "Ones wrongs do not justify another's" J, it does not apply here. Even in Latin.
    The loss of State's rights and other geovernmental ills do not forgive the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed gun ownership rights.
    Giving a bunch of people the right to have handguns and saying that it is based upon a reasoning that is no longer valid is not a valid chain of logic.
    Huh?
    You must first validate the reason, THEN get the other pieces into effect. I believe it will be harder to get states rights back than it would be to get gun ownership rights, ESPECIALLY AFTER STATES RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED. (in the case of gun ownership).
    ?
    SO if the main reason the right to bear arms was for the security of our individual sovereignty as individuals and local municipalities, that is no longer valid in the light of our growing federal power.
    Again; Iniuria non excusat iniuriam.
    If we can get the military back into the hands, primarily, of the people that comprise it, then maybe the right to bear arms will have more meaning.
    Yes, a military police state juggernaut would give gun rights meaning.

  14. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Why would someone who authored the thread need to notify herself that she changed the title?
    Suppose it depends what you mean by "authored."

    By a mainstream definition, Jcqueline Palank and Ian Urbina of the New York Times were the authors; they also appear to have chosen the original title.

  15. #60
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonik View Post
    The loss of State's rights and other geovernmental ills do not forgive the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed gun ownership rights.
    If the rights were given because of the power that is no longer has, yes indeed it does.

    We are talking politics here, NOT religion. You know that some Jews eat pork now, right?

    Huh?
    ?
    I give you A because of B. If B no longer exists, how can you validate A until you restore B? Logic.

    Again; Iniuria non excusat iniuriam.
    Again you are automatically assigning it as a wrong without valid proof. the constitution has that little rider in there that meant for the right to bear arms as an enforcement for state and local soverignity over the national government. If that is no longer viable, neither is the argument that you somehow have a right to keep them.

    What you have to do is reinstill what was lost BEFORE you start looking for the fringe benefits.

    Get your car back before you worry about what tires you are allowed to put on it.

    Yes, a military police state juggernaut would give gun rights meaning.
    I don't know if "juggernaught" is teh right term, or if you are being serious or sarcastic, but suffice to say, people are less likely to attack their neighbors than to do the same to someone they do not know.

    Suppression of "illegal" activities (which may vary from era to era) are usually handled best by soldiers or guardsmen NOT from that area. Why? They have little, if any connection.

    What would happen if you needed to use Texas's military force to tell Texas to do something they vehemently opposed? Would you call in other states military forces? You think you could get a Texas Soldier to force his state to do something different?

    I think this brings up a whole HOST of other problems, but it gives people back some of the sense of individuality.

    Now if the Feds decided to force Texas, or several states to do what they wanted, then those states could get the support from their civilian population as well as their own military forces to reject the enforcement.

    But what would it do now? Besides make people feel like they have more personal power (which can be taken from them faster than they know), what does this gun ownership do?

    Crime prevention has already been proven false. State soverignity is not at stake, that is already gone. What does it allow?

Page 4 of 40 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NYC's Fight for Gun Control
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 28th, 2011, 06:10 PM
  2. Rent Control Questions
    By tone99loc in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: December 7th, 2005, 10:39 PM
  3. Cabaret Laws Face Rewrite
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 12th, 2004, 12:48 AM
  4. U.S. is a joke - homeland security out of control
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 5th, 2003, 05:32 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2003, 08:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software