assault weapon ban: wonderful woman talks to panel in DC

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Pro gun people always seem to be such idiots. I have no problem with guns, but i do have a problem with idiots with guns. I don't think most people should be able to get a drivers license, let alone a gun.

judge not lest ye be judged

Nice signature, dumbass.

 

[Godsend1]

Marked.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: math20
"math20 didn't ask how the assault weapon ban defined an assault weapon, he asked what an assault weapon is."

I asked a rhetorical question aimed at showing how stupid the assault weapons ban is, just wanted to clarify.

be careful, Amused may tell you what you really were asking.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: crt1530

Originally posted by: BudAshes
Pro gun people always seem to be such idiots. I have no problem with guns, but i do have a problem with idiots with guns. I don't think most people should be able to get a drivers license, let alone a gun.

judge not lest ye be judged[/b]
Nice signature, dumbass.

Learn 2 quote. I fixed it for you.

kthxbye

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: math20
"math20 didn't ask how the assault weapon ban defined an assault weapon, he asked what an assault weapon is."

I asked a rhetorical question aimed at showing how stupid the assault weapons ban is, just wanted to clarify.

be careful, Amused may tell you what you really were asking.

You love me, don't you?

:lips:

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Matt2
Doesnt the second amendment state that in a well regulated militia, to protect the free state, people have the right to bear arms?

No, otherwise the framers could have wrote the well-regulated militia has a right to keep and bear arms, not "the people". Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to "the people" who are professional regulated government sanctioned orators.

How long has it been since you last read the 2nd amendment? It states right there that this law is for the sake of a well-armed militia, thus the ambiguity. Could they have meant that the people within such a militia should bear arms, or everyone? At the time, it was important that people be able to hold onto firearms since the militia was essentially the civilian population.

Nowhere in the constitution does the Constitution mention anything about orators, which is why your counterpoint is pointless.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Matt2
Doesnt the second amendment state that in a well regulated militia, to protect the free state, people have the right to bear arms?

No, otherwise the framers could have wrote the well-regulated militia has a right to keep and bear arms, not "the people". Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to "the people" who are professional regulated government sanctioned orators.

How long has it been since you last read the 2nd amendment? It states right there that this law is for the sake of a well-armed militia, thus the ambiguity. Could they have meant that the people within such a militia should bear arms, or everyone? At the time, it was important that people be able to hold onto firearms since the militia was essentially the civilian population.

Nowhere in the constitution does the Constitution mention anything about orators, which is why your counterpoint is pointless.

The militia is STILL every able bodied man.

There is no ambiguity to the Second Amendment. None whatsoever. The PEOPLE (not the government or it's agents) have the right to keep and bear arms.

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "

Considering the fact that this man basically WROTE the Bill of Rights, I think one could not possibly come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment is ambiguous in any way, unless they are intentionally trying to change it's original intent.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

How long has it been since you last read the 2nd amendment? It states right there that this law is for the sake of a well-armed militia, thus the ambiguity. Could they have meant that the people within such a militia should bear arms, or everyone? At the time, it was important that people be able to hold onto firearms since the militia was essentially the civilian population.

Nowhere in the constitution does the Constitution mention anything about orators, which is why your counterpoint is pointless.

the 2nd amendment says why we have the right to bear arms, and then that we have that right and the government shall not take it away.

i don't see why that is so hard to understand.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: math20
"math20 didn't ask how the assault weapon ban defined an assault weapon, he asked what an assault weapon is."

I asked a rhetorical question aimed at showing how stupid the assault weapons ban is, just wanted to clarify.

be careful, Amused may tell you what you really were asking.

You love me, don't you?

:lips:

I just think there is alot of things you are confused on.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: math20
"math20 didn't ask how the assault weapon ban defined an assault weapon, he asked what an assault weapon is."

I asked a rhetorical question aimed at showing how stupid the assault weapons ban is, just wanted to clarify.

be careful, Amused may tell you what you really were asking.

You love me, don't you?

:lips:

I just think there is alot of things you are confused on.

Naw, I'm not confused. Not a bit.