More 2nd Amendment violations planned in NOLA - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #31 06-07-2006, 09:30 PM

Aw shucks (toe in sand, blushing).

mgburg · #32 06-07-2006, 09:32 PM

FOLKS!

First: When the Constitution & Bill of Rights was written, many forms of "policing" were going on back in the 1700s. Confiscation of property, without legal reason or recourse was SOP. When you READ the Constitution and related documents, you must ALSO realize the context in which it was inspired and written. Failure to even understand the basics of the reason for such documents breeds illogical conclusions and further discussion is inane.

Second: As any knowledgeable individual knows, you can't build a house on a crappy foundation. Therefore, knowledge of WHY the Constitution was written and the conditions that formed the related documents is VITAL in any discussion of the subject. By applying TODAYS' values and standards on such a wonderful document without a proper backround of understanding of why the original document was written is folly. That's why these types of "discussions" do nothing but go 'round and 'round and get to no conclusion.

THE ANSWER? WE, THE PEOPLE, must get off our "bums" and start reading and understanding the very documents we profess to love and hold dear to our hearts. You don't have to be some smart**s Yale, or Harvard, Yuppie-Tree-Hugging-Anti-Republican-Anarchist-Baby-Slasher-History-Revisionist to understand the Constitution. It was written by men, to be read by men and understood by men (Women can enjoy it too!). What bothers the courts more than anything else is that a document (Or the series of documents) can be so simple. They (The courts) want everyone to think it's more complicated than it really is. It really isn't.

THE JOB? Ask any lawyer, "When you were in Pre-law School, and even during Law School itself, how much time did you actully spend reading and studing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?" The majority of them will probably say, "About eight hours." Some may say more, but I seriously doubt that it will be an extraordinary figure. (Unless, of course, that particular lawyer is actually a Constitutional Law instructor some place!)

As for this particular discussion, I'm weighing in on the side of the NRA and the peoples' right to bear arms. The state (Either the Federal Government or the State government) have been prohibited from confiscating legal firearms.

Thank you for this opportunity to throw, hopefully, some water on this smoldering discussion.

Now, go home and study. Saner discussions may be forthcoming.

Botnst · #33 06-07-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

FOLKS!
... Saner discussions may be forthcoming.

Wow, one post and you can already tell we need to study! And are insane! Amazing insight! Thanks!

mikemover · #34 06-07-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

FOLKS!

First: When the Constitution & Bill of Rights was written, many forms of "policing" were going on back in the 1700s. Confiscation of property, without legal reason or recourse was SOP. When you READ the Constitution and related documents, you must ALSO realize the context in which it was inspired and written. Failure to even understand the basics of the reason for such documents breeds illogical conclusions and further discussion is inane.

Second: As any knowledgeable individual knows, you can't build a house on a crappy foundation. Therefore, knowledge of WHY the Constitution was written and the conditions that formed the related documents is VITAL in any discussion of the subject. By applying TODAYS' values and standards on such a wonderful document without a proper backround of understanding of why the original document was written is folly. That's why these types of "discussions" do nothing but go 'round and 'round and get to no conclusion.

THE ANSWER? WE, THE PEOPLE, must get off our "bums" and start reading and understanding the very documents we profess to love and hold dear to our hearts. You don't have to be some smart**s Yale, or Harvard, Yuppie-Tree-Hugging-Anti-Republican-Anarchist-Baby-Slasher-History-Revisionist to understand the Constitution. It was written by men, to be read by men and understood by men (Women can enjoy it too!). What bothers the courts more than anything else is that a document (Or the series of documents) can be so simple. They (The courts) want everyone to think it's more complicated than it really is. It really isn't.

THE JOB? Ask any lawyer, "When you were in Pre-law School, and even during Law School itself, how much time did you actully spend reading and studing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?" The majority of them will probably say, "About eight hours." Some may say more, but I seriously doubt that it will be an extraordinary figure. (Unless, of course, that particular lawyer is actually a Constitutional Law instructor some place!)

As for this particular discussion, I'm weighing in on the side of the NRA and the peoples' right to bear arms. The state (Either the Federal Government or the State government) have been prohibited from confiscating legal firearms.

Thank you for this opportunity to throw, hopefully, some water on this smoldering discussion.

Now, go home and study. Saner discussions may be forthcoming.

Nicely put!

And welcome to the party! You make an impressive entrance.

Mike

mikemover · #35 06-07-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

As I read this thread, early on I thought I might need to weigh in. I could hardly have been more wrong. Bot and Mike have so soundly whupped poor Danny as to make my own ham-handed attempts to point out the ridiculousness of his position a waste of time. Bot, Mike, even when we've crossed swords with one another here, I have found your positions are typically well thought out and very often, quite eloquently stated. Y'all done yourselves proud here. Thank you!

Your check is in the mail.

Mike

Hatterasguy · #36 06-08-2006, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

You don't have to be some smart**s Yale, or Harvard, Yuppie-Tree-Hugging-Anti-Republican-Anarchist-Baby-Slasher-History-Revisionist to understand the Constitution.

Wow! Just wow!

peragro · #37 06-08-2006, 01:03 AM

I think I'm gonna go out and buy another gun.

Botnst · #38 06-08-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I think I'm gonna go out and buy another gun.

Make it either a handgun or an SKS.

Benzadmiral · #39 06-08-2006, 09:04 AM

"I can't come in to work this morning. The Voices told me to stay home and clean all the guns today."

Just sayin'.
.

NKowi · #40 06-08-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Your check is in the mail.

Mike

Good deal. As agreed, I won't try to cash it until the 15th.

Zeitgeist · #41 06-08-2006, 09:55 AM

Some people obsess about government encroachments and general abuses of the second amendment, but I say pffffffft on that; it's the third amendment that's most in danger folks!

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Wake up people, they're coming to sleep in your Swedish Dux bed..."IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW"!!!!! Sleep afraid...sleep very afraid!

If you're gonna freakishly fetishize a constitutional amendment, why not the third?

mikemover · #42 06-08-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I think I'm gonna go out and buy another gun.

Yep. There's a gun show coming to Atlanta in mid-July, and I'll be back home by then...

I'm going to buy that new Kimber Desert Warrior .45.... A great-looking, nice shooting gun. They have nice .22 conversions for them as well, for inexpensive target shooting. Might buy something else too, I dunno.

Have you seen those huge Israeli Arms .50 caliber handguns?... Now THAT is a pistol!

You could hunt wooly mammoths with that thing!

Mike

Botnst · #43 06-08-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

Some people obsess about government encroachments and general abuses of the second amendment, but I say pffffffft on that; it's the third amendment that's most in danger folks!

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Wake up people, they're coming to sleep in your Swedish Dux bed..."IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW"!!!!! Sleep afraid...sleep very afraid!

If you're gonna freakishly fetishize a constitutional amendment, why not the third?

Is the 3rd a problem in Oregon?

If it is, we can always rely on the individual's powers acknowledged in the 2nd.

B

Zeitgeist · #44 06-08-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Is the 3rd a problem in Oregon?

If it is, we can always rely on the individual's powers acknowledged in the 2nd.

B

...uh ya, we're gonna hold back the sleepy hordes with our wimpy handguns--plink plink plink pffft...whatevah

bciocco · #45 06-08-2006, 04:15 PM

In reply to the first post:
The fact remains that even though it is illegal to do so, the police chief will order that legally owned and carried firearms will be confiscated, regardless of the law.
Where are the NY Times and the ACLU on this one?
Are they busy worrying about the privacy rights of terrorists to make intercontinental phone calls?