You take care of yourself, but with a "guns are bad" and "cartels have a right to grow illegally on public land and shoot at hikers" viewpoint? Good luck with that, lol... See you in the Obitiuaries...
I don't like getting death threats
Sort:
Irontiger wrote:
Ah, the other thing I don't like in the US firearm debate: "Second amendment says so". Well, possibly, so what - the way it is now might not be the way it ought to be.
Unless you have mystical faith into slave owners from over two centuries ago to write universal rules for your country, you might dismiss tradition as a valid argument about what should be done now. The thieves and the British are less likely to invade your homes today, so the situation has changed.
Indeed, but again, to take that through, Americans would pretty much have to say, ok, forget about all the constitutional, unconstitutional rulings we've had for the last couple hundred years, we don't care anymore. We might as well just form a new nation, lol.
bigpoison wrote:
@ Looby':Huh? As is not unusual, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
'Knight. No worries, I will never come running to people like you to deal with anything. I take care of myself.
Oh, you want me to explain how things logically follow from each other? Or do you want me to make the obvious inference as to why Jefferson would bring it up? Forgive me for having a little more faith in your comprehension skills :)
Mind you, I'm not saying Jefferson is right -- he was a slave owner himself of course. I'm talking about what Jefferson said, nothing more.
I've never said, nor thought, "guns are bad."
Jul 21, 2014
0
#468
Babytigrrr wrote:
To Jamie, mus et al ...You Americans are clearly more knowledgeable about your second amendment than I, as you are about most things. I just figured as it's taken about a couple of hundred years of debate and Supreme Court rulings about its meaning, that maybe it has slight misinterpretation problems but hey... what would I know... I'm merely a typical foreign snob liberal with no reading abilities when it comes to American constitution and no law degree so therefore have absolutely no rights to make such observations.
I suppose when you think about it... it WAS written in the flintlock days ... maybe you should now all be more up to date with your rights to bear 'arms' ... dash-it-all, you should really be thinking Exocet and grenade launchers these days... Now that could really be some death threat. (Purely for defence purposes of course). And Jamie, since you made a statement in your OP concerning death threats and did NOT make it into a clear topic but went onto discuss armed defence, how can you plead 'off topic' at mention of the 2nd amendment? Now talking about cheese! THAT's off topic! I loike a bit of Cheddar myself.
I am happy to let the topic flow where ever it wants! Make mine some horseradish cheddar.
And I would like to hear what you think, as someone outside of the culture.
It's a lost cause trying to argue with these liberal types or Non-U.S. Citizens, Elubas. They lack the ability to comprehend a Constitution that freedom loving people have held near and dear ever since severing our ties from a tyrannical British government in 1783 (the official separation of the new nation from British rule). This same British government banned most guns and now expects it's police to uphold justice and the safety of it's citizens with whistles and batons (which worked so wonderfully when a riot in London occured involving people throwing molatov cocktails and [oh my] illegally acquired firearms and the police were unable to immediately stop it)
Jul 21, 2014
0
#471
Fankoo Jamie. I was getting the feeling I'm taking a few bullet holes here!
Ok, so Jefferson is concerned about criminals having weapons (like they follow the rules) and non criminals not having them. If you want to see how we can derive this from Jefferson's statement, ask away. Having weapons might make criminals more able to do bad things. I'm sure Jefferson was not as concerned about criminals using their illegally obtained weapons to kill animals or do target practice, but rather, to kill humans. Just a thought. And yes, maybe a non criminal might be inclined to save his life by killing the criminal, and might want to actually have a way to do so. This is my "interpretation."
Jul 21, 2014
0
#473
bigpoison wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
I was taught on the ranch at an early age to use and respect firearms, just like my brother. I was brought up in a culture of guns for hunting, guns for killing varmints, and guns for protection.
What ranch did you grow up on?! The O.K.? I've long wondered what the difference is between a farm and a ranch. Must be the lack of shootouts on the farm.
Part of the local ranch was in citrus (the hillsides - you don't get freezes as the cold air drops); part was sometimes used for cattle or other livestock, with parts in alflfa, etc.
Much of my shooting was at rabbits, ground squirrels, and other vermin (pest control). Occasionally did some dove, Chinese Ringneck pheasant, and duck hunts. We'd sometimes go shoot rats at the dump.
Elubas wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Ah, the other thing I don't like in the US firearm debate: "Second amendment says so". Well, possibly, so what - the way it is now might not be the way it ought to be.
Unless you have mystical faith into slave owners from over two centuries ago to write universal rules for your country, you might dismiss tradition as a valid argument about what should be done now. The thieves and the British are less likely to invade your homes today, so the situation has changed.
Indeed, but again, to take that through, Americans would pretty much have to say, ok, forget about all the constitutional, unconstitutional rulings we've had for the last couple hundred years, we don't care anymore. We might as well just form a new nation, lol.
Yes, but that is how the French actually roll. Just off the top of my head, they had revolutions or major reconstitutions in 1789, 1795, 1799 (Napoleon), 1814 (Napoleon again), 1830 (Chas X overthrown), 1832 (attempted, immortalized in Les Miserables), 1848, and 1852 (Napoleon III).
If and when the French have their next one, I'm joining in on the fun. I was seriously considering getting involved with that Euromaidan thing last year.
You can't say civilization don't advance...in every war they kill you in a new way.
-Will Rogers
@johnmusacha - loved your comment about the French.
On a different note, we have a Constitution that is intentionally difficult to change to protect our liberties. On major issues that the country agrees on, with time, the constitution can be amended. This allows for public input and also requires a large majority.
Unfortunately, for a long time, the Constitution has been eroded and judges became social activists instead of impartial referrees. The executive office issues laws and creates agencies that do not report to Congress and are not elected, yet effectively govern the people.
This is not new, and I am not blaming the current administration nor the Bushs for this. It's far older.
johnmusacha wrote:
WASP type crowd
The only WASPs I've ever heard of were the Women Airforce Service Pilots in WWII (I think that's what it stood for). Presumably, that's not what you mean, so I am a bit confused :)
Timothy_P wrote:
@johnmusacha - loved your comment about the French.
On a different note, we have a Constitution that is intentionally difficult to change to protect our liberties. On major issues that the country agrees on, with time, the constitution can be amended. This allows for public input and also requires a large majority.
Unfortunately, for a long time, the Constitution has been eroded and judges became social activists instead of impartial referrees. The executive office issues laws and creates agencies that do not report to Congress and are not elected, yet effectively govern the people.
This is not new, and I am not blaming the current administration nor the Bushs for this. It's far older.
Actually we've gone way too far in the opposite direction. The Constitution is considered a sacred cow at this point and who knows when or if there will ever be another amendment...
Here's my 2 cents. In 1780, the law actually said every able bodied man had to have a gun for protection and common sense. You needed it for rattle snakes, Indians, and British troops. Everything was fine until 1970 when the gun lobby noticed the phrase, "well armed militia". There's been an explosion of gun violence ever since the 70's. Now don't get me wrong. I agree with Normatic Knight and Jamie. Even if you say, Ronnie, you had Al Capone in the 30's. Yes, but the gun violence today is way over the top with 8 dead at a restaurant, or 16 dead at a high school. My own experience with them was only in the Air Force. An M-16, a .38 revolver, a grenade launcher, and dogs.
tubebender; I love your post but, are you in the right thread ?? Unless your implying that you want them to have guns for suicide? I think you want the, "I'm in Prison" thread. hahahahaaa Jeezs Louise! these TD's think they own the place. I DO want to steal your quote, and use it on Trysts. "here's a gun, you should seriously consider suicide as an alternative in trying to post a CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT!".
Yes, I think your lack of intelligence on the issue is fogging your view...