• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What is the future of the 2nd Amendment

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

Yes I guess it does sound like gay bashing, but gays can't do much damage with their 'weapons' whereas you can, so although I don't agree with my friends assertions of what they'd do if they saw you in the mall wiht a loaded gun, and frankly I think they were exaggerating a bit anyway, I think it exemplifies how most people feel about ordinary citizens walking around openly carrying loaded guns.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

swine wrote:
You said, "No; you DO have to go back.  It must be viewed in the time it was written otherwise the verbage will be misinterpreted, like you just did."

Bullbleep!  Should we go back and do animal sacrifices because the bible says we should do them every sunday?

We have to live in the modern 21st century.  We can't continue living in the 18th century.  It's OVER!  We can't go back there.  I DON'T have to go back.  I CAN'T go back and neither can YOU!  Sheesh!

So, you don't give a crap what the constitution means? That makes sense considering your views. Are you having fun with your strawman arguments?

If you don't believe the constitution is right come out and say it and we can all stop the debate.
 

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

No, I think your interpretations don't translate. My point about the animal sacrifices is that we are all admonished by the bible to do animal sacrifices on the Sabbath, and colonial writers admonshed us to be prepared to join a militia from time to time. So there are anachronisms in early writings and who's to say what parts of them are anachronistic. I say that public carrying of guns is anachronistic, sort of 'old wild west' anachronistic and I believe the vast majority of Americans agree with me.
 

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

Hey, cool YouTubes! Not for five year olds though, or eight year olds like that kid who's father let him fire his Uzi and lost control and shot himself in the head.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

We all operate on axioms, statements we accept as truth without proof. Folks do not change their axioms through discussion. It takes a life-altering event to get us to re-examine our axioms.

One of swine's axioms is that parts of the Constitution can be discarded if some feel those parts have no place in current times. I personally think that is a vile axiom. But, I also recognize that we will never change his mind.

So, the question is, why are you trying. When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty. However, the pig likes being dirty.

Bottom line: He ain't worth talking to.
 

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

The Constition is a living document not a dead one. The minute you lock something up as tightly as you guys want to lock it up, it stops breathing and it dies. The founders meant to give us an example of how to fit good government into the context of their day hoping that we would follow their example and keep fitting good government into the context of our days when we got to where we are in the 21st century.

You guys think they gave us a hermetically seal 'life plan' from the perspective of the 18th century that we could follow unaltered for the next 1000 years or so. Not me. I don't think that's what they did, and I don't think that's what the Constitution is.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

swine wrote:
No, I think your interpretations don't translate.  My point about the animal sacrifices is that we are all admonished by the bible to do animal sacrifices on the Sabbath, and colonial writers admonshed us to be prepared to join a militia from time to time.  So there are anachronisms in early writings and who's to say what parts of them are anachronistic.  I say that public carrying of guns is anachronistic, sort of 'old wild west' anachronistic and I believe the vast majority of Americans agree with me.
Swine, even if it was anachronistic, and it isn't, it wouldn't matter. They told us how to amend it if you don't like it, and if you can get your vast majority to vote to do so, go for it.

But for now, don't try to cheat it or misinterpret it, we started out discussing what it means and you have brought no proof to counter our side to the debate, only emotional responses to our rational argument. Got anything rationa? Swine?
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

swine wrote:
The Constition is a living document not a dead one.  The minute you lock something up as tightly as you guys want to lock it up, it stops breathing and it dies.  The founders meant to give us an example of how to fit good government into the context of their day hoping that we would follow their example and keep fitting good government into the context of our days when we got to where we are in the 21st century. 

You guys think they gave us a hermetically seal 'life plan' from the perspective of the 18th century that we could follow unaltered for the next 1000 years or so.  Not me.  I don't think that's what they did, and I don't think that's what the Constitution is.
Firstly, I disagee that its a living document unless you mean it can be amended.
Secondly, we were talking about the very meaning of the words which has nothing to do with what you just said.

I'd type more and argue with you more but I'm limiting it o short replys from my phone.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
We all operate on axioms, statements we accept as truth without proof.  Folks do not change their axioms through discussion.  It takes a life-altering event to get us to re-examine our axioms.

One of swine's axioms is that parts of the Constitution can be discarded if some feel those parts have no place in current times.  I personally think that is a vile axiom.  But, I also recognize that we will never change his mind.

So, the question is, why are you trying.  When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty.  However, the pig likes being dirty.

Bottom line:  He ain't worth talking to.
I like rolling in the mud every once in a while, keeps me in practice.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

swine wrote:
You said:

"I'd like to further add that I believe the only thing that can void ones rights are the equal rights of others. Therefore; your perceived right to not be offended or scaredby my bearing of arms is trumped by my actual right to do so for whatever legal reason I choose to do so."

I showed this reply of yours to some friends of mine and they said that if they saw you in wondering around theshopping mall with a loaded gun, and you were not in official uniform (police, national guard, etc.) they would calmly go into the local sporting goods store and buy a baseball bat and then go find you if you were still in the mall and wait untill your attention was distracted and hit you over the head with the bat just hard enough to disable you long enough to take your gun away from you and throw it away. that's how most people feel abou 'open carry'.
Apparently your friends have emotional issues as well. It's criminals like you and the people you represent thatI need to protect myself against.

At the risk of wasting yet another request for some proof of one of your ridiculous, fantasy world, asinine assertions, provide a link to some evidence that proves "that's how most people feel abou 'open carry'." The truth is, that is how you and your emotionally disturbed friends feel.

You really need to go seea psychiatrist.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:
eye95 wrote:
We all operate on axioms, statements we accept as truth without proof. Folks do not change their axioms through discussion. It takes a life-altering event to get us to re-examine our axioms.

One of swine's axioms is that parts of the Constitution can be discarded if some feel those parts have no place in current times. I personally think that is a vile axiom. But, I also recognize that we will never change his mind.

So, the question is, why are you trying. When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty. However, the pig likes being dirty.

Bottom line: He ain't worth talking to.
I like rolling in the mud every once in a while, keeps me in practice.
I like a good intellectual argument. You ain't getting that here. Just a lot of emotional mud.

However, it's your choice.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
Brass Magnet wrote:
eye95 wrote:
We all operate on axioms, statements we accept as truth without proof.  Folks do not change their axioms through discussion.  It takes a life-altering event to get us to re-examine our axioms.

One of swine's axioms is that parts of the Constitution can be discarded if some feel those parts have no place in current times.  I personally think that is a vile axiom.  But, I also recognize that we will never change his mind.

So, the question is, why are you trying.  When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty.  However, the pig likes being dirty.

Bottom line:  He ain't worth talking to.
I like rolling in the mud every once in a while, keeps me in practice.
I like a good intellectual argument.  You ain't getting that here.  Just a lot of emotional mud.

However, it's your choice.
Well, I believe we have to argue against this type of emotional mumbo jumbo in real life on a daily basis and its good practice to counter it rationly. Not only that, but I believe fence sitters who are rational benifit from seeing who is finging poo and who isn't, therby making an educated decision on which side of the fence to land on and not an emotional one.

Just call it a sort of community service....

ETA: my grammar and spelling are suffering because of the small keyboard, sorry.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

swine wrote:
You said:

"I'd like to further add that I believe the only thing that can void ones rights are the equal rights of others. Therefore; your perceived right to not be offended or scaredby my bearing of arms is trumped by my actual right to do so for whatever legal reason I choose to do so."

I showed this reply of yours to some friends of mine and they said that if they saw you in wondering around theshopping mall with a loaded gun, and you were not in official uniform (police, national guard, etc.) they would calmly go into the local sporting goods store and buy a baseball bat and then go find you if you were still in the mall and wait untill your attention was distracted and hit you over the head with the bat just hard enough to disable you long enough to take your gun away from you and throw it away. that's how most people feel abou 'open carry'.

A perfect example of liberal "tolerance". Ifyou need a betterillustrationthat commies like swine are the same sort of sociopaths that have caused genocides, famines and mass executionsof the last 100 years I don't know what else it would take.

Rest assured, as soon as this bed wetting fascist scumbag and those like him ever got to disarm us, a whole new systematic mass murder of the enemies of socialism would begin.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

swine wrote:
Bullbleep! Should we go back and do animal sacrifices because the bible says we should do them every sunday?

We have to live in the modern 21st century. We can't continue living in the 18th century. It's OVER! We can't go back there. I DON'T have to go back. I CAN'T go back and neither can YOU! Sheesh!
This particular argument is so full of factual holes, religious hatred, and pseudo-academic BS that it barely merits discussion.

But I just can't help myself...;)

First, Since you seem to be such an authority on Old Testament Biblical Law, I assume you've read the original Torah in Hebrew.

Oh you haven't? Well, maybe the medieval Latin? No?

Perhaps you've read the original English translation, the KJV? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll work under the premise that you have in fact at least read the King James translation.

So first, you need to understand that in the Old Testament texts, you are reading a written down version of a text that was based on an oral tradition--one which predates the first written Hebrew versions by at least a thousand years. Second, the Latin versions that were used as sources for the KJV were actually based largely on Arabic and Greek translations--NOT the original Hebrew. Then the KJV versions were made by people who neither had access to the original Hebrew scrolls, nor were fluent in ancient Hebrew, so they had no way to check for the accuracy of the original sources.

Then you need to remember that most of these texts started life as metered Hebrew and Aramaic poetry. Poetry that was translated into PROSE through at least three linguistic translations before making it into English, which pretty much guarantees that ANY of the subtleties, nuances, and layered meanings will be stripped out, rendering these texts to be largely meaningless in terms of spiritual, literary, and emotive merit.

Then you need to understand that much of Post-Elizabethan English is essentially a foreign language to most modern English Speakers, and the meaning of many words (like "virgin", beast, and "to know") has changed TREMENDOUSLY in the intervening 400+ years.

So I'm assuming it must be your lack of fluency in Hebrew, or Latin, or 17th Century English that caused you to read the Bible as saying animal sacrifices were supposed to be made on Sunday.

Because the Jewish Shabbat is, in fact, on SATURDAY. And if you bothered to actually READ the Old Testament, you would find that NOWHERE does it say that sacrifices were to be made EVERY Shabbat, only on special ones, or when you were petitioning G*d for a specific blessing, or on high festivals.

Now If you've got a problem with Jewish folk and their religious tradition, that's YOUR issue, but I think everyone else will agree that your slander of Hebrew religious traditions is bordering on anti-semitism, and THAT, my good man, will NOT be tolerated on this forum. (but it might explain your screen name...)

But if it's the general idea of the ritual slaughter of animals that you have an issue with, then I guess there are thousands of Kosher and Halal butcher shops (and millions of their customers), and several hundred thousand practitioners of Santeria, Voudon, Candomble, Yoruban traditional religions, and Hindu's that you must dismiss as being "wrong" and "outdated. I would offer that there are tens of million people in North, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Western Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia who would beg to differ...

You obviously have NO experience with academic research or historical analysis of literature, and it is quite apparent that your understanding of the language of legal texts is on par with that of the average spoon.

It is also quite evident that your cultural literacy is about as sophisticated as a Brittany Spears video, and your understanding and comprehension of the world's sacred religious texts is about as deep as a Dixie cup.

All that said, it's been fun watching you flail around, wallowing in your own ignorance.

But it's getting messy and offensive, and I think maybe the prudent thing to do would be to put this thread to bed before it gets any more messy.

Enjoy wallowing in your own pseudo-intellectual offal. We won't be watching any more...

P.S. Please put your location on your profile. I need some new places to write reviews for OC experiences, and I'd LOVE to meet your baseball-loving friends. I've got ALL summer open for travel, and my wife and daughter BOTH carry too.
 

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

Well, if you look at my original post you can see some rational arguments that set out some definitions of the words in the 2d Amendment that indicate what that statute might mean in the context of the 21st century according to 21st century definitions of those words. We know the SCOTUS is wrestling with the kinds of questions (not the particular questions, of course) but the kinds of questions that we are discussing here, and they're probably gonna come up with some sort of compromise that 'incorporates' the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights.

My prediction is that they willestablish, once again, a firm and inviolable right to keep and bear arms, but they will restrict to some degree when, where, and how they can be used.
 

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

I already do go see a psychiatrist every week, on Tuesdays as a matter of fact. And I showed her your "Rage Against Self Defense" screed for her and her colleagues to evalutate from a psychiatric/scientific point of view. Her initial take on glancing through it was that it was a bunch of crap, but she promised to look at it more closely and let me know how it stands up against other papers purporting to indentify mental illnesses. I let you know what she came up with next week.
 

swine

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
306
Location
, ,
imported post

I don't know how to put my location on my tag or whatever, but I live in San Francisco, which marshaul knows perfectly well (I can hear everybody on this site saying "well that explains a LOT!).

But I really liked your latest post. I really did. I think you are a good biblical scholar and I don't doubt any of your analysis. I also don't think it undermines my point that we can't allways adhere to the admonitions and remonstrations of the past, like in those in the bible, or (and now I'm stepping in it for sure), some of the stuff implied in the Constitution, like having citizen militias at the ready to overthrow the government by force.

BTWdid you know thatArticle II, Section 2 says that the Presidentshall be the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navyand of the Militia of the severalStates?So if your well regulated militia is just a 'well dressed' militia or whatever y'all said it was, then why is it under the command of the President? I say that's pretty 'well regulated' in the modern 21st century sense of 'regulated'.

The thing I REALLY like about your analysis is that it can also be used to counter the arguments that the bible condemns homosexuality. I've made a copy of it and I will use it whenevery I'm confronted with anyone saying being queer is a sin.
 
Top