Wanna stop a future AWB? Then get your butt in here now!

imported post

Audioautomatica wrote:

Well goodness, from all these posts claiming superior intelligence not many of you know much about people or psychology.

The point in shooting up a mall for example, would be to terrorize and strike fear in the hearts of a community. Assault rifles are directly linked to war and death, while shotguns and pistols can be linked to hunting, fun and self defense quicker than war.

But you knew that already I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Please Mr. Keyboard Commando, leave the internet. You're spewing so much shit out your ass, it's unbearable to read your posts.

Take a moment and actually READ the manifestos or psychological reviews of WHY people shoot up malls. You're ignorance is so unintelligible.

Thank you, get a life.

-iRoo

imported post

Oh Gawd, just what we need. Another teenaged smartaleck knowitall. Young man, first of all calling carbonated soft drinks "POP" is NOT a New York regionalism, it is a Midwestern thing. And a "clip" is firearms nomenclature for a metal strip holding several cartridges, used to facilitate loading into a magazine. Example: I took a clip of 20 rounds and loaded it into the magazine of my M-16" Certain weapons such as the M1 Garand load a clip directly into the magazine and eject the clip when the last round is fired. It is not a "po-tay-to versus po-tah-to" issue.

Seems to me that you do not think the 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear firearms. In fact, seems to me you are opposed to people having firearms at all. Plus you have shown you have zero knowledge of fire arms. Every time I see one of you youngsters posting your left-wing brain vomit on this site, I check the technical threads about for example proper cleaning and maintainance or choice of holster, etc and - NOTHING.

If you do not believe that the right to keep AND BEAR ARMS INCLUDING FIREARMS is sacred, then get your young butt off this ssite and go yammer on the Brady Bunch site. They'll pat you on your li'l puddinhead and give you the self-validation you sso obviously and desperately crave.

imported post

Oh Gawd, just what we need. Another teenaged smartaleck knowitall. Young man, first of all calling carbonated soft drinks "POP" is NOT a New York regionalism, it is a Midwestern thing. And a "clip" is firearms nomenclature for a metal strip holding several cartridges, used to facilitate loading into a magazine. Example: I took a clip of 20 rounds and loaded it into the magazine of my M-16" Certain weapons such as the M1 Garand load a clip directly into the magazine and eject the clip when the last round is fired. It is not a "po-tay-to versus po-tah-to" issue.

Seems to me that you do not think the 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear firearms. In fact, seems to me you are opposed to people having firearms at all. Plus you have shown you have zero knowledge of fire arms. Every time I see one of you youngsters posting your left-wing brain vomit on this site, I check the technical threads about for example proper cleaning and maintainance or choice of holster, etc and - NOTHING.

If you do not believe that the right to keep AND BEAR ARMS INCLUDING FIREARMS is sacred, then get your young butt off this ssite and go yammer on the Brady Bunch site. They'll pat you on your li'l puddinhead and give you the self-validation you sso obviously and desperately crave.

imported post

Honestly, I wanted to give Audioautomatica a good dose of internet pwnage, but I can't convince myself his drivel is worth my time.

I'm going to place the burden where it belongs: Audioautomatica, perhaps you can share with us your personal understanding of the concept of a "right".

And then, perhaps you can explain whether the First Amendment protects speech which is critical of the government once the government has passed legislation prohibiting such speech.

imported post

Surrounded by Seattle holier than thou liberals. Fertile, yet moldable mind.

imported post

(1) Whether certain tools designed to enhance the defense of person (s) may be manufactured, transported, sold, or possessed in the jurisdiction of these United States. (2) Whether person(s) have a ligitimate RIGHT to act in defense of their person(s). (3) Whether (1) & (2) are interdependent, and therefore both protected by the 2A.

Action in defense of person(s) may incompass "discouraging" foreign or domestic enemies of our constitutional republic, "interacting" withsome slime-bag cockroach in a Wal-Mart parking lot. I prefer a "snubby" for the latter, and at least an AR-15 for the former.

Someone considering an attempt to disarm this "people"- better have hugged the "Mrs", kissed the "wee one's" goodbye, and have paid their life insurance premium
last month.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Honestly, I wanted to give Audioautomatica a good dose of internet pwnage, but I can't convince myself his drivel is worth my time.

I'm going to place the burden where it belongs: Audioautomatica, perhaps you can share with us your personal understanding of the concept of a "right".

And then, perhaps you can explain whether the First Amendment protects speech which is critical of the government once the government has passed legislation prohibiting such speech.

Click to expand...

Please do it in another thread, or we can create another thread NOT full of trolling for the original purpose.

imported post

I did get a chuckle from the "pop" analogy. In Texas all carbonated beverages are called "cokes". The conversation goes like this. You guys want a coke? Sure, I'll have a Dr. Pepper. Make mine a 7-up. Rootbeer thanks. Alright, be right back with your cokes.

I am amazed anytime someone new attemptsto school the discussion board. There's a pretty knowledgeable group of folks here. It's like those who tell us the President elect is going to be good for us. "Just wait and see, you'll like him." It's just insulting.

imported post

Audioautomatica wrote:

If they banned all firearms period, you would still have the right to bear arms. You would simply be wielding blades and impact weapons.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were pretending to be living in liberal fantasyland.

So we have the right to sticks and knives? Gee, somebody better time travel and tell Sam Adams, Tom Jefferson, and the rest of the founders that they had it all wrong.

In your Obama-baked brain, does the Right to Free Speech only cover talking, also, but not print or other media????



I'm done typing. No wonder 'The Majority' voted the way they did.

imported post

"Young man, first of all calling carbonated soft drinks "POP" is NOT a New York regionalism, it is a Midwestern thing."

I lived in NY, NY for four years and Niagara Falls for two.

Pop is almost as common as the work "like". Although up towards Canada they say "Colas". Whether Colas is a Canadian thing like the phrase "mint"; I don't know, it maybe be northwester NY slang.

"Another teenaged smartaleck knowitall."

Said the 'Republican smartaleck knowitall'.

"In fact, seems to me you are opposed to people having firearms at all."

You got me. My opinions about the unnecessary ownership of assault weapons; designed to be fully automatic, my understanding of the English language in correlation of the second amendment and my post in Selecting a Handgun mean I disapprove of all guns.

How did you know?

"If you do not believe that the right to keep AND BEAR ARMS INCLUDING FIREARMS is sacred, then get your young butt off this ssite and go yammer on the Brady Bunch site. They'll pat you on your li'l puddinhead and give you the self-validation you sso obviously and desperately crave."

Are you guys reading what I'm saying at all?

My point is that you have the right to bear arms.

Arms = WEAPONS.

A bill banning guns or gun accessories is not removing your right to bear arms.

It's removing your privilege to own a certain type of GUN/GUN ACCESSORY. A gun is an arm, but "arms" include guns; as in "arms" isn't limited to firearms, and firearms only.


To marshul-----

I've stayed on topic, the 1st amendment is not on topic, you can make another thread if you'd like.

I see the constitution as above the law.

And by that I mean it's place is to ensure the nation's (America) society's (You, me and everyone in-between) rights as citizens regardless of what the fools who dabble in banks or politics (And politics IS for fools.) say or do.

So let's the government/banks/big business inner circles don't think you should have guns or weapons of any kind to defend yourself?

Then the second amendment says "It's your weapon, you have the right as a citizen to use it in defense of yourself, your rights and your countrymen."

The second amendment isn't specific for a reason. Lets say the asses and elephants are working together to form a military state, to harbor absolute control. The second amendment then has nothing to do with;

"I bought my gun I can keep it!"

It then has everything to do with defending you and your family's lives from the government trying to strip you of what you undeniably DO own, your rights as an American.

A lot of your 'understanding' of the second amendment is similar to the concept; The first amendment means you can call a black person the N word with no repercussions.

(Not calling anyone racist, it's simply an analogy to compare two similar concepts that are of two different things.)

Ha.

"Surrounded by Seattle holier than thou liberals. Fertile, yet moldable mind."

Are you kidding? I'm not so weak as to succomb to Politics.

If you want to talk about molding minds, however. Raise your hand if you go to church!


To Sandcreek------

You understand the second amendment, I find that admirable from what I've seen from everyone else so far.

Regardless of whether or not you and I agree,

Kudos. :]

"I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were pretending to be living in liberal fantasyland.

So we have the right to sticks and knives? Gee, somebody better time travel and tell Sam Adams, Tom Jefferson, and the rest of the founders that they had it all wrong.

In your Obama-baked brain, does the Right to Free Speech only cover talking, also, but not print or other media????



I'm done typing. No wonder 'The Majority' voted the way they did."


Do you all see what politics does to people?

It's a damn shame.

It's like people assume everyone loves politics, and are either a Democrap or Repug.

And if a person is of one general belief ( and the parties are VERY generalized, they encompass hundreds of schools of thoughts within themselves) and someone disagrees with them they assume that person is of the 'opposing' party. Without ever a thought that maybe politics are worthless, and that person knows better.

I don't understand why people think this way, and perhaps never will. But if you're to busy to see that the parties often share benefactors (note that I said parties, not specific candidates for whatever office) and that if guns are ever taken away at all it will be by the government; not one party or the other.

Offtopic------ It's clear that Obama is a fool who likes to listen to his own voice, but atleast he's better than McCain who would jump to war against any handful of countries minding their own business, WMD or not.

Regardless of who's in office, it takes 3 branches of government to make a decision, the presidential office has little more than political/international influence and veto power.

Worry more about who's in the legislation and congress. Be more concerned about child molesters and perverts voting on whether or not to pass a bill, than a "socialist" president who hardly has any ability to make decisions on his own.


Edit: Grammatical errors.

imported post

Audio-teen, I just finishe writing a post called "let's end the Bickering". Read the damn thing, carefully. You are not old enough to be one of us and your comments and responses are - to say it politely - jejune, ******* grow up and come back and talk to us grownups when you have had to eat outr of your own refrigerator for a few years. Meanwhile STFU. get off this blog mommy"s boy.

imported post

Audioautomatica-

Your posts are full ofanti-politics references, which areare ludicrous due to your commentsto the finepeopleon this site beinglabeled as"republicans" and also church-goers (an obvious stab at God fearing people that hang on to guns and religion). That is the definition of hipocrisy.

Secondly, I vote for Constitution Party candidates, but I find it amusing that you labeled me something different (Republican)and made a judgement call on that because I support our troops.

Third, I see that you refused to mention any of the literature I listed in my last post on this thread. If you would at least take the time to educate yourself on the relavent documentation to the 2nd amendment andour Founders and authors of our rights,it may thenbe possible that posters here would take you more seriously despite your young age, even if you had a differing opinion.

Fourth, just what in the world is an "arm" to you? To me, it is simply a term consisting of weapons that may be carried by "the people" and is defined by dictionary.com asbeing... Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms. That would include "assault weapons" or any other types of sabres, bladed weapons, rifles, pistols, clubs, throwing weapons, whatever may be carried,etc..

By your logic, handguns or any other types of weapons that the federal government deems necessary or not for us to have is at their discretion, which means you have little to zero understanding of the historical nature of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 2nd and 10th amendments. Shall not be infringed does not meanto be partiallyinfringed with regulation nor does it mean "common sense" gun or weaponlegislation. That is simple infringement.

And lastly, many of us here, including myself, have been studying this subject and the relavent information since before you were born. To come here as a young lad and essentially talk down to us as if you know more about it and know better than us without offering anything other than personal opinion and zero documentation (as I have at least provided), severely depletes your argument and gives off the impression of not onlyarrogance but alsoignorance.

Prove us wrong. I am willing to listen to your case if you can make one.Your opinions are not even in line with the Heller decision which was a poor argument at best for the true nature of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, but even thatstill throws water on the fire of any argument you have made here in this thread. Your postssound like you would be willing to write the dissent for that case.


Edit: Spelling error

imported post

"Your posts are full ofanti-politics references, which areare ludicrous due to your commentsto the finepeopleon this site beinglabeled as"republicans" and also church-goers (an obvious stab at God fearing people that hang on to guns and religion). That is the definition of hipocrisy."

Satire. Not hypocrisy.

Also, I support people using spirituality to better thier lives. I don't support blind fools following an organization they haven't even tried to understand.

Guess which one a "god-fearing" person is considered? If you're not such person what concern of it is yours?

Secondly, I vote for Constitution Party candidates, but I find it amusing that you labeled me something different (Republican)and made a judgement call on that because I support our troops.

Blaming things on the media, actually. I honestly didn't really read the part about the troops until you mentioned it. I saw you mentioned 'media' read back a little, laughed and based my assumption as such. Not trying to be a dick, only honest.

Edit: By "didn't really read" I meant 'didn't take actual notice in order to respond to'. I'm not confident many people will catch that meaning.

Third, I see that you refused to mention any of the literature I listed in my last post on this thread. If you would at least take the time to educate yourself on the relavent documentation to the 2nd amendment andour Founders and authors of our rights,it may thenbe possible that posters here would take you more seriously despite your young age, even if you had a differing opinion.

So you're suggesting I take time to 'educate' myself on documents and concepts that are in context from centuries ago along with things like slaves and indentured servants, things our founding fathers 'intended'...when my understanding of the second amendment in context of today's society is perfectly fine, and undeniably better than a few (I didn't say all, or even most. Only few.)of the people on this board; more specifically a couple people who have posted in this thread. Just to reply to your post? So you can take me seriously on the internet?

Oh and read books by people who most likely share the general opinions of some of the people who have posted in this topic already?

I'm not really a fan of redundancy myself.

Fourth, just what in the world is an "arm" to you? To me, it is simply a term consisting of weapons that may be carried by "the people" and is defined by dictionary.com asbeing... Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms. That would include "assault weapons" or any other types of sabres, bladed weapons, rifles, pistols, clubs, throwing weapons, whatever may be carried,etc..

By your logic, handguns or any other types of weapons that the federal government deems necessary or not for us to have is at their discretion, which means you have little to zero understanding of the historical nature of the Bill of Rights, particularly the 2nd and 10th amendments. Shall not be infringed does not meanto be partiallyinfringed with regulation nor does it mean "common sense" gun or weaponlegislation. That is simple infringement.

And by your logic, a WMD is a weapon. I should have the right to that.

I'm sorry but no. One needs discretion, and WMD, explosives and assault rifles have few purposes in a daily life that can't be substituted by smaller, less destructive but equally effective firearms.

And lastly, many of us here, including myself, have been studying this subject and the relavent information since before you were born. To come here as a young lad and essentially talk down to us as if you know more about it and know better than us without offering anything other than personal opinion and zero documentation (as I have at least provided), severely depletes your argument and gives off the impression of not onlyarrogance but alsoignorance.

Prove us wrong. I am willing to listen to your case if you can make one.Your opinions are not even in line with the Heller decision which was a poor argument at best for the true nature of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, but even thatstill throws water on the fire of any argument you have made here in this thread. Your postssound like you would be willing to write the dissent for that case.

I'm talking down to people who are wrong, and are adamant that they are not. The same way I would talk down to someone refusing to admit the world is round.

If I were talking down to everyone as so many of you claim, jp would no doubt come down on me. But I don't, I bring valid points whether or not any of you are willing to admit it, and really I've only defended myself from ignorance and insults; and been correct. Granted in an arrogant way.



By all means buy up all the assualt rifles you want with the biggest magazines you can find.

Just know that if they're outlawed, you still have your right to bear arms.

imported post

It's kind of sad... If this kid had his facts straight he could be listened to.

But, alas.

imported post

Oh dear where to begin. I suppose I can thank the media for your lack of knowledge of the terms you are using.

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Fully automatic firearms are strictly controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and require great lengths and expense to acquire.

Assault weapon is a term used to describe semi-automatic copies of real assault rifles, or any other weapon which looks "evil." Usually used by those who are trying to ban said rifles.

You seem to have the impression that anyone can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a fully automatic firearm, this is not the case at all. Nor are the semi-automatic copies designed to be easily converted to fully automatic fire. Easily converted is the same as fully automatic as far as the ATF is concerned.

You have the right to bear arms, the only thing that defines what those arms are, are the laws that tell you what you can not have.

Click to expand...

Indeed we do have the right to bear arms, but this right shall not be infringed. Laws banning specific arms are a great infringement.

The law states a vague generalization. If you had the right to bear an assault rifle, none of you would be afraid of them being taken away. The fact you recognize your firearms can be taken away shows you understand you simply have the right to bear arms, and not a right to bear anything specifically.

Click to expand...

Governments have a long track record of rights abuses, does the phrase "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty" mean anything to you? This is another place where the shall not be infringed wording seems to have slipped your mind.

AZkopper's Second Amendment explanation was quite good so I'll post it here again in case you missed it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Rights of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Definitions: 1.The People: The same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, and all other amendments 2.Militia: Every abled bodied male 17-45. Source: English common law, codified and expanded in 10USC311 [modern, currant, United States law]. 2. Keep: To own, to have. 3. Bear: To carry 4. Arms: firearms that are usable by a single person. Includes pistols, revolvers, rifles. Does not include bazookas, land mines, or nuclear weapons, to name a few (those are ordinance). 5. Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Case Law on the 2nd Amendment: 1. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that because "[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…". 2. United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear ordinary military weapons that could contribute to the common defense. 3. District of Columbia v. Heller, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that "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," A Constitutional view of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government has no right to restrict in any fashion the possession or carrying of any type of revolver, pistol, or rifle (including "military type" rifles). The 14th Amendment (incoroporation) holds the states cannot have a higher restriction than the Federal Constitution. As others have already said, read the Federalist Papers and papers written by those who actually wrote the Constitution if you want to understand it.

Click to expand...

In short the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear all arms, firearms included, and this right shall not be infringed.

A WMD is no more an arm than a boat is a rocket ship. Antis seem to love throwing in this non sequiter for some reason. A right to own one does not confer the right to own the other.

0/10 Mr Troll, no rage shall be had from me.

imported post

Audio-teen is a kid, Razz. I dunno why someone would join this forum when they are too young to OC in the first place but he's only 18 and my guess is he's just being a bit of a scamp - sorta like annoying your big brother, I guess. A true "troll" just seeks to sow discord. I think our young pard is trying to find a cure for the Kool-Aid he has been fed. Remenber he is a kid, and that "well, I guess I can have a hydrogen bomb under th 2A" nonsense is exactly what they peddle these days. Are you aware that the booklet on the Constitution given out to visitors by Congressmen describes the 2A as "obsolete"??

Personally what I read in the 2A is that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms suitable for light infantry use and/or hunting. And the choice is up to the individual, but last I heard a light infantryman would not carry a hydrogen bomb about his person. And if "the People" means the State, theen that means that "persons, papers and effects" means the records of the State government and its officials.

What we are dealing with in Audio-teen's case is a young man who has been thoroughly confused by the forces that have worked long and hard to pervert our system of government. So let's give him a little break and try and educate our little brother. I must say he has shown signs that he can tell light from darkness. I will grant you it is irritating to have BS thrown upin one's face. But best deal with it now before this kid becomes a damn Senator, eh?

imported post

Audioautomatica wrote:

You do not have any 'right' to own an assault rifle with the potential to mow down an entire corridor of a shopping mall in one clip. The same way you have no actual right to own a nuclear weapon.

You have the right to bear arms, the only thing that defines what those arms are, are the laws that tell you what you can not have.

Click to expand...

Okay, let me get this straight. I don't have the inalienable right granted by the constitution to defend myself against a tyrannical government with a semi-automatic version of a weapon intended for use in combat? What planet are YOU from? The ONLY law is the constitution. Period.
You my friend are a nObama zombie. I think you're an infiltrator. And yeah Mike,,sorry,,this is a personal attack. Delete it if you want but this fella needs to find another forum and/or wake up and smell the coffee.

imported post

KansasMustang wrote:

Okay, let me get this straight. I don't have the inalienable right protected by the constitution to defend myself against a tyrannical government with a semi-automatic version of a weapon intended for use in combat?

Click to expand...

Time out. Fixed it for you. Please continue. Time in!

imported post

Might I suggest young Mr. Audio, that you enlist in the Marines or Army. THEN you just might develope an understanding of what it means to support and defend the constitution. And also what it means to defend the inalienable rights of not only yourself, but others. Those rights being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And also, it might just help you become a man, tho' I may wonder.

imported post

Thank you Nelson,,my bad