NFR: No Solution, just dead kids...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
Before we go any further with this thread I'm hoping someone can post the "sporting arms clause", of the 2nd Amendment, you know that part that states it is specifically about hunting arms. I can't seem to locate it, it's referenced so often here and by folks like Gov Cuomo that I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Thanks in advance.
The following, to the best of my recollection, is the context of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Written in 1780 plus or minus. Of course it is impossible to know exactly what our founding fathers meant by this compound sentence which contains three separate phrases. The interpretation therin lies to the reader, at first, then those who may be required to challenge, regulate and/or adjudicate any offenses of the same.

If you ask me, and no one really did, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." can be broken down into two key concepts, in my humble opinon. First, it addresses the militia, which seems to have evolved to the national guard. This entity exists in each of the fifty states (I think) and is a professionally trained fighting force for national issues, although most know that the national guard have also been deployed with the armed forces to international issues as well. Second, and most clearly, we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall not be infringed [upon by the government...which is my belief as to who we are expected to keep and bear arms against, due to the whole tyranical reign concept that was the catalyst to our declaration of independence a few years before this amendment was written]

WTF do I know though. I'm a dumb monkey. I do have a pocket constitution, that I refer to often, and carry quite a bit, in part because what I do day to day has to balance many things, including rights of the people in my professional community. Now I'm talking about work, and I'm off work...knock it off.
 

dryflylarry

"Chasing Riseforms"
The following, to the best of my recollection, is the context of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Written in 1780 plus or minus. Of course it is impossible to know exactly what our founding fathers meant by this compound sentence which contains three separate phrases. The interpretation therin lies to the reader, at first, then those who may be required to challenge, regulate and/or adjudicate any offenses of the same.

If you ask me, and no one really did, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." can be broken down into two key concepts, in my humble opinon. First, it addresses the militia, which seems to have evolved to the national guard. This entity exists in each of the fifty states (I think) and is a professionally trained fighting force for national issues, although most know that the national guard have also been deployed with the armed forces to international issues as well. Second, and most clearly, we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall not be infringed [upon by the government...which is my belief as to who we are expected to keep and bear arms against, due to the whole tyranical reign concept that was the catalyst to our declaration of independence a few years before this amendment was written]

WTF do I know though. I'm a dumb monkey. I do have a pocket constitution, that I refer to often, and carry quite a bit, in part because what I do day to day has to balance many things, including rights of the people in my professional community. Now I'm talking about work, and I'm off work...knock it off.
So, that means that we need AR-15's and AK-47's to defend ourselves from our government?!
OH........................h. Now I understand, stupid me.
The only thing I need a gun for is hunting, except I don't hunt anymore. If I did, I think I would be perfectly happy with a 30-06 for deer or elk, and a shotgun or two for some birds. Oh, I can kill in less than 3 shots, so keep the damn clips larger than that. (Oh whoops, I forgot about fighting the government.) Anyway, if you can't kill a deer or elk with one shot or some birds with 3, you shouldn't own a gun anyway. BTW, how many of you get your "rocks off" by firing your AR-15 anyway? If you do, have you every thought of joining the military? It might be just right up your alley!
 
Perhaps if those people have a problem with other folks' use of birth control, then they might be in the wrong line of work?
You mean like running your own business or being catholic?You certainly can't tell someone not to use BC,but you should not be compelled to provide it against your religious beliefs.
 

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
So, that means that we need AR-15's and AK-47's to defend ourselves from our government?!
OH........................h. Now I understand, stupid me.
The only thing I need a gun for is hunting, except I don't hunt anymore. If I did, I think I would be perfectly happy with a 30-06 for deer or elk, and a shotgun or two for some birds. Oh, I can kill in less than 3 shots, so keep the damn clips larger than that. (Oh whoops, I forgot about fighting the government.) Anyway, if you can't kill a deer or elk with one shot or some birds with 3, you shouldn't own a gun anyway. BTW, how many of you get your "rocks off" by firing your AR-15 anyway? If you do, have you every thought of joining the military? It might be just right up your alley!
Larry, I did not say or type anything like what you seem to indicate I led you to believe, and quote. If you are going to quote me, make it relevant. I'm not defending AR-15's and AK-47's. I have seen first hand what they can do. I have neither, nor a need for them. I did join the military, back in 1986, and after 20 years and 9 days I retired on September 11th, 2006. I chose that date on purpose. The significance still remains. If I choose to have weapons to defend myself from the assaults from others, or a tyranical government (our or another that chooses to think they can overthrow ours) that is my business and my right to do so as provided by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The composition of guns owned may have room for regulation. I belive that guns are tools and those tools should fit the proper or needed use. I don't disagree with your take on hunting or the proficiency needed.

If the government sent armed guards to your house and told you to toss your guns in the back of thier dump truck, would you?
 

Josh

dead in the water
This thread's gone full retard.
What? No way. This thread has gone full epic is what you mean. We've gone from sorrow over the tragic death of children to talking about pharmacists, birth control pills, "holiday" vs. "christmas" and mocking those who can't kill things efficiently enough. Solid gold 100% not a time waste at all.

But hey, maybe this will help?



You can pry my gun argument thread from my cold dead LCD.
 
A point is atheists, gays, hell you name it can do and say whatever they please and speak there minds push their views and its ok. Try to pray in school or wear a religious shirt. you get sent home.
What exactly are these "atheist views?" There is no such thing. Atheism is nothing (literally). You are 100% free to pray where and when you like, and I'll be the first to back you up on that. Neither you, nor the government (or government run schools/institutions) can tell me that I have to participate. If anyone has been sent home for praying or wearing a religious shirt, I would wager to guess it was an isolated incident. That is definitely not the norm.

This religious persecution everyone seems to be up in arms about seems to just be some people being upset that they don't get their way (having everyone follow the same religion and pray publicly).

The percentage of Americans who identfy themselves as Christians is still very high - over 70%. Doesn't seem to have made much of a difference in preventing all the carnage in this country.
An amusing statistic is that there is a correlation between secularism and lower rates of violence in developed nations. The safest countries, with the happiest people in the highest standards of living happen to also be the least religious places. (see: Scandinavia. Don't see: the American Southeast).
 
I find it amusing how many Second Amendment enthusiasts can't seem to accept the First Amendment (or at least the establishment clause). Doubly amusing that the same guys are scared witless about the government getting involved in regulation of firearms but perfectly at peace with the government being in the business of religion. Not to mention the notion that none of the bad stuff would happen in this country if'n we had just kept nativity scenes, Christmas carols and state-sponsored prayer in public schools. The percentage of Americans who identfy themselves as Christians is still very high - over 70%. Doesn't seem to have made much of a difference in preventing all the carnage in this country.
So is a few moments of silence to be considered state-sponsored prayer in public schools? Or as stated a few posts down from yours "Did you really think kids were not allowed bow their heads, close their eyes, fold their hands, and pray in their head?" So which way is it? Can they really do that in public schools? Since I have not attended school for 50+ yrs, I have to rely on the media for that info. What? You mean to tell me the media is biased? :eek: And the government being in the business of religion? Heavens too Betsy, what are they doing? Putting Jesus on postage stamps? Or maybe a Christmas tree? Oh, but they are called holiday trees now, so it must be OK. Other than the government telling the Catholic church they must provide birth control for their employee's, (which imho is a direct violation of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) I was not aware the government had gone into the religion business. That is unless by that you mean the business of interfering with religion. Could you please be more specific re: the government being in the business of religion? Just for the record, I haven't been inside a church for decades either.
 
So is a few moments of silence to be considered state-sponsored prayer in public schools? Or as stated a few posts down from yours "Did you really think kids were not allowed bow their heads, close their eyes, fold their hands, and pray in their head?" So which way is it? Can they really do that in public schools? Since I have not attended school for 50+ yrs, I have to rely on the media for that info. What? You mean to tell me the media is biased? :eek: And the government being in the business of religion? Heavens too Betsy, what are they doing? Putting Jesus on postage stamps? Or maybe a Christmas tree? Oh, but they are called holiday trees now, so it must be OK. Other than the government telling the Catholic church they must provide birth control for their employee's, (which imho is a direct violation of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) I was not aware the government had gone into the religion business. That is unless by that you mean the business of interfering with religion. Could you please be more specific re: the government being in the business of religion? Just for the record, I haven't been inside a church for decades either.
I was in public school up until just over 10yrs ago. I was a youth pastor for a while after that (oh how things have changed in my world). So I've been in both. Your posts are making less and less sense as you go on. Your post here isn't even a coherent, answerable question/statement.

And yes, the mainstream media (all of it) is biased. They are in no way required to report facts or reality. They are there for ratings, to make money, and to support the narrative of the private corporation that owns said broadcast.

Thankfully, the internet has given us a way to see things from all angles. Seeing media reported stories in peer reviewed format from all points of view really gives you a new perspective on things. Granted, that takes more than passive watching/listening, which is more than the average American is willing to do.
 
More like Emperor and Overlord of Brown Trout. Have you seen what that guy catches? Wish I had 10% of his fishiness.
I've seen what he catches, and I've held the meat sticks and swim baits he back rows to catch them (when he's not drifting live sculpins like a boss).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts