• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2nd Amendment rights?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hate to tell you this but the Supreme Court could could just as easily say otherwise if a shift in political leanings of the Supreme Court were to change.

OH and a question to you, should convicted murderers be allowed to have guns?
 
Last edited:
Matthiasa said:
Hate to tell you this but the Supreme Court could could just as easily say otherwise if a shift in political leanings of the Supreme Court were to change.

OH and a question to you, should convicted murderers be allowed to have guns?
Click to expand...

You didnt answer my question. Its post #25 in this thread in case you missed it.
 
techs said:
The problem is that the writers of the Constitution knew this as a gun:
22-1037.gif


And had no idea this would turn out to be a gun:
ak47.jpg
Click to expand...

Would those be the same people who knew that in recent historical times (to them), armies fought with long bows, pikes and swords? And that those same armies fought with black powder muskets during their time?

Wow.....those guys must have been pretty short-sighted, to not be able to figure out that technological advances might some day take armies past the use of muskets!! 🙄
 
That had been stuck at musket level technology for hundreds of years though. 😛

nick1985 said:
You didnt answer my question. Its post #25 in this thread in case you missed it.
Click to expand...

Well yeah It would, they would have to be part of said association to be well regulated. 😛
 
marvdmartian said:
Would those be the same people who knew that in recent historical times (to them), armies fought with long bows, pikes and swords? And that those same armies fought with black powder muskets during their time?

Wow.....those guys must have been pretty short-sighted, to not be able to figure out that technological advances might some day take armies past the use of muskets!! 🙄
Click to expand...

The sad part is that you have to actually spell it out...
 
marvdmartian said:
Would those be the same people who knew that in recent historical times (to them), armies fought with long bows, pikes and swords? And that those same armies fought with black powder muskets during their time?

Wow.....those guys must have been pretty short-sighted, to not be able to figure out that technological advances might some day take armies past the use of muskets!! 🙄
Click to expand...
No shit. Trolls ftl.
 
HannibalX said:
Go ahead, you know your wrong, attack the presentation, it's what a coward would do.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to back up your side with links to things done by other people, at least link to stuff from people knowledgeable with in the subject at hand, and not people that do (or did) stage acts, and are at best simple entertainers.
 
Matthiasa said:
If you are trying to back up your side with links to things done by other people, at least link to stuff from people knowledgeable with in the subject at hand, and not people that do (or did) stage acts, and are at best simple entertainers.
Click to expand...

Again, attack the presentation because you know you're wrong, that's all you can do.
 
Umm if that's what you want to believe. Delusion is such a wonderful thing. 😛
(read you missed the whole point of the post)
 
Matthiasa said:
If you are trying to back up your side with links to things done by other people, at least link to stuff from people knowledgeable with in the subject at hand, and not people that do (or did) stage acts, and are at best simple entertainers.
Click to expand...

...who have the ability to think for themselves, right? Cause in your state, simple entertainers can't think or be knowledgeable about a simple amendment?
 
Matthiasa said:
Umm if that's what you want to believe. Delusion is such a wonderful thing. 😛
(read you missed the whole point of the post)
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that I believe, it is what you have done in this thread and it's plain to see. You didn't attack the content you attacked the presentation, twice. Why? Because you have no argument against their message only them individually. Pathetic.
 
I'm saying it is better to link to people whose knowledge in more then just based on a simple opinion on the subject at hand.

To put it more simply you wouldn't ask an entertainer to be your source for lets say a paper your doing when the subject it is about is not their specialty.
 
read you missed the whole point of the post
Click to expand...

Uhh, no. If you want to say you do not support 2nd amendment protection of gun rights that's fine but you can't deny that the protections exist which is what you are doing.
 
Matthiasa said:
I'm saying it is better to link to people whose knowledge in more then just based on a simple opinion on the subject at hand.

To put it more simply you wouldn't ask an entertainer to be your source for lets say a paper your doing when the subject it is about is not their specialty.
Click to expand...

I guess this is where I leave and let the troll starve.
 
Matthiasa said:
I'm saying it is better to link to people whose knowledge in more then just based on a simple opinion on the subject at hand.

To put it more simply you wouldn't ask an entertainer to be your source for lets say a paper your doing when the subject it is about is not their specialty.
Click to expand...

No, you're simply attacking the presenters of a message because you can't find fault in the message, that's it right there. You know that you're wrong and are trying to discredit the message because you have no alternative. Pathetic.
 
HannibalX said:
Uhh, no. If you want to say you do not support 2nd amendment protection of gun rights that's fine but you can't deny that the protections exist which is what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Okay let me spell it out for you, since you're having issues understanding it.

That is their opinion on it, their interpretation of it. That's the fun part about the English language, and well language in general, it is up to individual interpretation, especially when imprecise language is used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top