Ron 10 #176 November 17, 2009 Quote>And all of your examples are a FAR cry from a State sponsored religion. Yep. Just as restrictions on ownership of tanks is a FAR cry from "outlawing guns. And we were not talking about tanks... we were talking about self defense and personal firearm ownership. But as always, you won't stay on topic you can't defend when you can distract in a different direction that you think you can win. You want to turn this into "You don't need a tank for self defense", that's not what we were discussing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #177 November 17, 2009 >And we were not talking about tanks... "for example, but quite literally, if a person wants to own, say, fully-armed tanks . . " Gotta read _before_ replying. >But as always, you won't stay on topic you can't defend when you can distract >in a different direction that you think you can win. Rush, is that you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #178 November 17, 2009 Quote>And we were not talking about tanks... "for example, but quite literally, if a person wants to own, say, fully-armed tanks . . " Gotta read _before_ replying. That was ANDY'S post, not Ron's. Gotta verify you're quoting the right person _before_ replying.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #179 November 17, 2009 >That was ANDY'S post, not Ron's. "And WE were not talking about tanks." "We" is a pronoun that identifies multiple people (in this case, the people posting in the thread.) >Gotta verify you're quoting the right person _before_ replying. This reminds me of the Internet law that every post bitching about spelling will, itself, contain a spelling error. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #180 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuote I think Obama is simply reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks on his watch. I don't know why you think that. He's publicly made statements that the tragedy will be fully investigated and that those responsible will be held accountable. Let's hope he does for America's sake because Obama’s refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the weak nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, makes me recall President Clinton’s deliberate decision to turn his cheek and downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He didn't even visit the site of the attack....... He treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #181 November 17, 2009 >because Obama’s refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism Good for him. Good to see the politics of fear starting to lose ground. >He didn't even visit the site of the attack....... Again, good for him. I'd rather he was working. >He treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them Good. It _was_ a crime, a particularly horrible one. >rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. A fourth good. We don't need yet another war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #182 November 17, 2009 Quote>That was ANDY'S post, not Ron's. "And WE were not talking about tanks." "We" is a pronoun that identifies multiple people (in this case, the people posting in the thread.) Weak. Andy brought it up as hyperbole to argue limitations on the 2nd Amendment. You're trying to imply it was a major point of the discussion. Quote>Gotta verify you're quoting the right person _before_ replying. This reminds me of the Internet law that every post bitching about spelling will, itself, contain a spelling error. Really? Show me where I passed off someone else's words as yours in my reply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #183 November 17, 2009 >Show me where I passed off someone else's words as yours in my reply. Dude, you complained about me discussing topics in the thread beyond those addressed specifically to me or Ron - and you did so by responding to something that wasn't addressed to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #184 November 17, 2009 Quote>Show me where I passed off someone else's words as yours in my reply. Dude, you complained about me discussing topics in the thread beyond those addressed specifically to me or Ron - and you did so by responding to something that wasn't addressed to you. Wrong. I called you out on a deliberate misquote that made it look like Ron was discussing tanks. Seeing as how I quoted YOU, in a response to YOUR post, your comparison and subsequent whining is bullshit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #185 November 17, 2009 QuoteAndy brought it up as hyperbole to argue limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Actually I really wasn't. I was simply trying to play teacher: explaining that much terminology in ANY statutes or constitutional provisions is not unequivocally self-defining, but rather is subject to interpretation; and that, historically, one of the many factors that influences that interpretation is whatever tenor of the times may happen to be at the time whatever case may be decided. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that Ron was trying to demagogue my words, and I just didn't have the patience to get sucked into that kind of process. So there's my explanation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #186 November 17, 2009 Thanks for the explanation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #187 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo the battle in the courts - both courts of law and courts of public opinion - has been over the correct and reasonable definition of "infringed". So, yes - in actual practice, "shall not be infringed" really is a hard concept to grasp. Who says it has to be reasonable? The word means what the word means, whether or not it still seems 'reasonable' in the face of modern weapons technology. It is certainly one point of view that it need not be reasonable. Others feel that reasonable-ness is implied. Obviously, that's a crucial part of the debate, both in and out of the courtroom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #188 November 17, 2009 Quote Let's hope he does for America's sake because Obama’s refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism, and to heed the warning signs about the weak nature of our security system that allowed it to happen on a military base, makes me recall President Clinton’s deliberate decision to turn his cheek and downplay the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He didn't even visit the site of the attack....... He treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them, rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. I see no reason yet to view this as a terrorist attack, nor any gain that calling that would entail. The guy sounded nutty, and happened to be "Muslim." I used the quotes since there was some headline on the muted TV at work about how he liked to visit strip clubs often. And it's no more displeasing for me to see that soldiers on a base are sitting ducks than it is for all 40M of us living in California, where CCWs are non existing in general, nevermind in gun free zones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #189 November 17, 2009 >because Obama’s refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism **Good for him. Good to see the politics of fear starting to lose ground. No that's not good for him. It's putting his head in the sand on the subject. >He didn't even visit the site of the attack....... **Again, good for him. I'd rather he was working. Was he too busy with another woman that day that he couldn't even come to NY? >He treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them **Good. It _was_ a crime, a particularly horrible one. Knock knock..... who's there.... Political Motive! That's terrorism my friend. >rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. **A fourth good. We don't need yet another war. Has it ever dawned that because he did nothing, it led to the USS Cole attack and 9-11??? How about had Clinton taken action and "went to work" that we might not have experienced the other two? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #190 November 17, 2009 Quote>because Obama’s refusal to call the attack an act of terrorism **Good for him. Good to see the politics of fear starting to lose ground. No that's not good for him. It's putting his head in the sand on the subject. You've already made it clear that you can't tell the difference between terrorism and a lone mentally ill person with a delusion. Fortunately, Obama can tell the difference, and has the willingness to refuse to play the politics of fear. Quote>He didn't even visit the site of the attack....... **Again, good for him. I'd rather he was working. Was he too busy with another woman that day that he couldn't even come to NY? So now you imply that he's an adulterer. Great. Now let's hear a few gems about his wife and kids. Thanks for raising the level of discussion. Quote>He treated it as a crime, promising to find those guilty and punish them **Good. It _was_ a crime, a particularly horrible one. Knock knock..... who's there.... Political Motive! That's terrorism my friend. Knock knock ... lone mentally ill person with delusion my friend. Quote>rather than to attack the international groups that funded and enabled them. **A fourth good. We don't need yet another war. Has it ever dawned that because he did nothing, it led to the USS Cole attack and 9-11??? It never dawned on me that Obama is responsible for the Cole and 9/11, no. Thanks for setting us straight on that. QuoteHow about had Clinton taken action and "went to work" that we might not have experienced the other two? And hopefully we've learned something from those attacks - aside from the fact that 9/11 happened 9 months into the Bush Administration - which of course you don't see as meriting any mention. P.S. - don't expect the Administration and the CIA to bring you personally into the loop on ongoing anti-terrorism activities and black ops into Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. That sort of stuff tends to be classified. Even for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #191 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo the battle in the courts - both courts of law and courts of public opinion - has been over the correct and reasonable definition of "infringed". So, yes - in actual practice, "shall not be infringed" really is a hard concept to grasp. Who says it has to be reasonable? The word means what the word means, whether or not it still seems 'reasonable' in the face of modern weapons technology. It is certainly one point of view that it need not be reasonable. Others feel that reasonable-ness is implied. Obviously, that's a crucial part of the debate, both in and out of the courtroom. Reasonableness is implied? Where and how? Honestly, I thought that kind of... interpretation was generally confined to theology. I also think that the only reason so much debate and argument swirls around the meaning of the amendment is because a) a lot of people just don't think it fits anymore but b) to change it would be unthinkable and impossible. I don't think that there are that many people out there who genuinely think that 'shall not be infringed' means 'can be infringed as long as it's not completely banned', they just argue it out of convenience.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #192 November 17, 2009 QuoteSo now you imply that he's an adulterer. Great. Now let's hear a few gems about his wife and kids. Thanks for raising the level of discussion. From there downwards he was talking about Clinton and the WTC bombing...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #193 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo now you imply that he's an adulterer. Great. Now let's hear a few gems about his wife and kids. Thanks for raising the level of discussion. From there downwards he was talking about Clinton and the WTC bombing... We can all read. And I answered what he wrote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #194 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo now you imply that he's an adulterer. Great. Now let's hear a few gems about his wife and kids. Thanks for raising the level of discussion. From there downwards he was talking about Clinton and the WTC bombing... We can all read. And I answered what he wrote. "It never dawned on me that Obama is responsible for the Cole and 9/11, no. Thanks for setting us straight on that. "Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #195 November 17, 2009 QuoteThe 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp? Except you are ok with somebody chosing to forego their right. Like you chose to forego your right by your choice in employer. or your choice of educational facility, or your choice of shopping venue. The only difference is that you agree with the military, but not the local university or shopping mall. Lastly, as Andy has pointed out the sentence isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. For the reconrd, I would have no problem with any and all weapons being available and legal in the US. Certainly would make for an interesting social experiment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #196 November 17, 2009 QuotePolitical Motive! If your argument is that an attack with political motive is what it takes to make an act one of terrorism, you just define most of the recent wars the US and its allies waged as acts of terrorism.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #197 November 17, 2009 Quote The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp? Ask Antonin Scalia - even he has no difficulty acknowledging that the 2nd does not provide unlimited rights.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #198 November 17, 2009 >It's putting his head in the sand on the subject. If "putting his head in the sand" means avoiding misadventures like Iraq I am all for that. >>He didn't even visit the site of the attack. >Was he too busy with another woman that day that he couldn't even >come to NY? Dude, the attack was in Texas, not NY. >Knock knock..... who's there.... Political Motive! That's terrorism my >friend. So Richard Poplawski, the Pittsburgh cop killer, was a terrorist? He was a right winger, and often posted on pro-gun websites, where he discussed his plans for killing! Are you going to demand an investigation into terror-supporting pro-gun sites? >Has it ever dawned that because he did nothing, it led to the USS >Cole attack and 9-11? Are you talking about Clinton or Bush? Both ignored warnings, although Bush received the only direct one. His last warning was a briefing entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE US." His response? He went on vacation. >How about had Clinton taken action and "went to work" . . . Well, let's see. He created an anti-terror program in the US government in the mid-90's. He tasked the CIA with going into Afghanistan and finding support for killing or capturing Bin Laden. After the Cole he planned a military operation to hit Bin Laden, but could not get confirmation from the CIA that Bin Laden was behind the Cole. He came within hours of killing him when he later authorized an operation into Afghanistan to kill him. Bottom line - both Clinton and Bush went after Bin Laden. Both failed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #199 November 17, 2009 QuoteAsk Antonin Scalia - even he has no difficulty acknowledging that the 2nd does not provide unlimited rights. More so back to the topic, ask Chief Justice Roberts about the 2nd as it applies to self defense. QuoteChief Justice Roberts expressed skepticism about a crime victim’s ability to remove a trigger lock and load a gun in the dark, in the few seconds after a criminal had broken into his or her home. Maybe you should ask Justice Scalia about it? QuoteJUSTICE SCALIA: Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Maybe you should ask Justice Kennedy what he meant by his, “settler in the wilderness” imagery. And maybe you should look at the majority opinion in Heller v DC: ***1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #200 November 17, 2009 QuoteExcept you are ok with somebody chosing [SIC] to forego their right. Of course! You are free to give up as many of YOUR rights as you wish. QuoteThe only difference is that you agree with the military, but not the local university or shopping mall. Not what I said at all... .Read it again, and try again."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
