ScotsAlan Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Is it true the second ammendent also made an allowance for a state sponsered standing army... for no more than two years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 6, 2013 Author Share Posted May 6, 2013 No, I thought it would be obvious to you that a hell of a lot of them are though. Why didn't you express this utter contempt for American gun owners when you were surrounded by them at a range not so long ago?. Did you call them spineless cowards to their face?. Keyboard warrior. Clearly you are hard of understanding. The people at the range were professions, experience weapon handlers and in a secure range. My contempt is for the type of parent who buys their 4 year old a rifle and then leave him alone with the loaded rifle. For the arsehole walking down the highstreet with an AR15 on his back "exercising his rights". Hah, you calling me a Keyboard warrior? This from the guy named after a gun manufacturer, whose only experience of warfare is playing CoD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 This thread is quite odd. I don't care about the rights of Americans to have guns, that's their own choice and issue. Can we all agree that, irrespective of your position on the right to bear arms, giving a five year a gun is seriously messed up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the spineless cowards to keep and bear arms shall be infringed" I read it differently. But the way you read it...free guns for everyone!!!! Fixed, that appears to be how you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 6, 2013 Author Share Posted May 6, 2013 What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand. "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" I read it differently. But the way you read it...free guns for everyone!!!! Also the 2nd amendment was written at a time of muskets. Written at a time when there wasn't more firearms than people. But yeah, lets ignore those facts as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 1) The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the USA, I disagree with that. I consider the Bill of Rights to be describing the inalienable, natural and universal rights of man (and woman). You can disagree with whatever you like, I'll stick to the truth. There may be some principles contained within the Bill of Rights that I agree with but as I'm not an American the Bill of Rights carries no weight with me. What does your nationality have to do with your rights??????? Do you have to argue everything? The Bill of Rights being discussed is the fundamental basis of American law, its applicability is therefore entirely based on nationality. As I said there are some principles in that I agree with, and some I don't, but the fact is it carries no weight with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 This thread is quite odd. I don't care about the rights of Americans to have guns, that's their own choice and issue. Can we all agree that, irrespective of your position on the right to bear arms, giving a five year a gun is seriously messed up? Correct but as we already are aware that was never the aim of this thread. Its obvious to everyone that is stupid, there was nothing to discuss in that respect. In other words MDO is trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 What part of " the Right of the people" don't you understand. "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" I read it differently. But the way you read it...free guns for everyone!!!! Also the 2nd amendment was written at a time of muskets. Written at a time when there wasn't more firearms than people. But yeah, lets ignore those facts as well. And cannons. Your point?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Actually the pro 2A guys, the partiots etc are the guys who fought for their rights in war. My cousin for one is a Vietnam vet, so much for spineless cowards you prick. Are all pro 2nd amendment guys veterans? Or are the vast majority wannabes? Moron. No, I thought it would be obvious to you that a hell of a lot of them are though. Why didn't you express this utter contempt for American gun owners when you were surrounded by them at a range not so long ago?. Did you call them spineless cowards to their face?. Keyboard warrior. Yahoo.Ruger you lose....first rule on forums ,is that the first person to say "keyboard warrior" does so through having no vaild arguement left. MDO and I win :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx It needs to be absorbed in its entirety - not cherry picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 This from the guy named after a gun manufacturer, whose only experience of warfare is playing CoD. CoD??? I'll have you know that I did a tour of 'Nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 The Bill of Rights being discussed is the fundamental basis of American law, its applicability is therefore entirely based on nationality. As I said there are some principles in that I agree with, and some I don't, but the fact is it carries no weight with me. There is nothing distinctly "American" about the Bill of Rights; it's based on English common law, Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. Habeas Corpus didn't come from the Red Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Ok one last attempt, the Bill of Rights being discussed on this thread is the America Bill of Rights. My comments are on made on that basis. I guess that you just never ever concede a point. I believe that meaningful discussions requires the ability to accept other people's point of view, maybe you would like to try it. You risk just increasingly coming across like a spoilt child. Anyway, for the sake of my sanity I'm off for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 English common law gave people the right to carry arms. Times change. And so did English common law. Change can be good. Change is called progress. Progress takes time. But it does tend to be for the good. A little bit of progress can save a lot of lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 English common law gave people the right to carry arms. Times change. And so did English common law. Change can be good. Change is called progress. Progress takes time. But it does tend to be for the good. A little bit of progress can save a lot of lives. If you think government having a monopoly on violence is "progress", then you are a lemming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.