shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hmm, it appears as though Moonbeam believes that, acknowledging the possibility that fire could strike your home, imagining what scenarios might or are most likely to unfold if such an unfortunate and potentially tragic event should occur, determining a plan of action to protect one's self and family in the event of a fire, is really nothing more than fantasizing about being a 'hero' so one can feel important and loved.I constantly run 'what if' scenarios like that where I kill a monster, an alien, some hells angles, some iraki terrorists and so on.
Hell, those of us who have acknowledged the possibility of a fire and formulated plans of action to protect ourselves and family in such events may, according to Moonbeam, even be extremely likely to set a fire deliberately so we can then rescue ourselves and family, out of a Factitious/Munchausen by proxy type need to be perceived as a hero.
Surely, then, the "real" reason anyone would buy a fire extinguisher, is because they fantasize not only about rescuing those from danger, but battling the fire itself ala some repressed firemans complex.
Once again tscenter nails it on the head.
I think I'll go buy a fire extinguisher and play Backdraft in my basement.
And for all the dumb rednecks here The 2nd amendment does NOT protect your right to own a gun Open your eyes and read some Supreme Court papers and old documents, and you will see the the 2nd amendment protects a state gov.'s right to keep a well armed milita, or as we call it now aday, a national guard.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like mine because I like to fantasize about using it to protect myself and some girl from a bad guy. I think about being a hero and getting love and generally all that makes me feel better. I constantly run 'what if' scenarios like that where I kill a monster, an alien, some hells angles, some iraki terrorists and so on. It gives me something to do while I bite my finger nails and kind of helps me to avoid knowing how scared I feel.
Originally posted by: DaZ
Just curious.. why?
I have ZERO reason too.. I might enjoy going down to the gun range and firing one once or twice.. but other then that.. meh..
Repealing the Second Amendment
Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.
Originally posted by: KC5AV
And for all the dumb rednecks here The 2nd amendment does NOT protect your right to own a gun Open your eyes and read some Supreme Court papers and old documents, and you will see the the 2nd amendment protects a state gov.'s right to keep a well armed milita, or as we call it now aday, a national guard.
And you need to open your eyes and read the Attorney General opinion that says the 2nd DOES cover an individuals right to keep arms. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't make them a redneck. I happen to own quite a few firearms, and plan to increase that number. It really breaks my heart that this offends you. Really. I just know that I would stand a better chance defending myself than just sitting by and letting someone rob me, or rape my wife.
Originally posted by: Eli
I've always been against guns, and still am for the most part..
I think they're the single worst invention in human history.. their only purpose is to kill, even if sometimes it is for food.. lol
That said.. I wouldn't mind having a small rifle for survival purposes..
They're tools, not toys as far as I'm concerned...
Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd
Repealing the Second Amendment
Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.
I own a gun to stop the democrat conspiracy, as written by Neal Boortz. Of course I believe most of what he wrote is in satire, but there are definitely partial truths and possibilities to all of it. I don't favor eroding liberties.
I'd also like to point out that the National Guard is a very half ass final interpretatoin of the second amendment. I'd also like to point out it says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms." Government controlled "militia" hardly represents the people.
EDIT:
:| I just want to reiterate Klah's point:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
And for all the dumb rednecks here The 2nd amendment does NOT protect your right to own a gun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are these different:
"..the right of the people peaceably to assemble.."
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."
So you believe all of the first 10 amendments apply to individuals except the 2nd?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seriously think we need to start going back to stricter interpretations of the constitution. Some things are just getting sick these days.
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
The attorney general is NOT A JUDGE, he is the top cop of the nation. It is his job to follow the law not write it. So he can say what he wants, it will not hold up in court. every heard of the Constitution?? Why don't you give it a REAL read.
Ascroft is a sore loser that lost to a dead guy and pushs his beliefs on others. This from the man that wanted to cover the statue of justice as he thought it was obsene![]()
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
I got my .22 for target shooting, and my 30.06 for going hunting with my dad. Before you incriminate guns as being only for kill weapons, how many people were killed by cars this week? What about stabbings? What about beatings? A baseball bat can be quite a weapon and has no more legitimate use than a firearm.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
The attorney general is NOT A JUDGE, he is the top cop of the nation. It is his job to follow the law not write it. So he can say what he wants, it will not hold up in court. every heard of the Constitution?? Why don't you give it a REAL read.
Ascroft is a sore loser that lost to a dead guy and pushs his beliefs on others. This from the man that wanted to cover the statue of justice as he thought it was obsene![]()
You can't really be that stupid. Well I guess you could but I thought AOL users were not allowed in this forum. Go back and give the Constitution a read yourself. Then pick up some of the works of the Founding Fathers to get their views on private gun ownership. I don't know where you got the wacked out opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee private gun ownership but I'm willing to bet it was in a public school.
Here you go Toolio......you might want to do a little reading...The Constitution says courts define law.
So show me one case that has held up and says the 2nd protects a person rights to a gun.
You didn't answer the post regarding the last US Federal Court Case regarding guns in 1939 and it's ambiguity.Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: KC5AV
And for all the dumb rednecks here The 2nd amendment does NOT protect your right to own a gun Open your eyes and read some Supreme Court papers and old documents, and you will see the the 2nd amendment protects a state gov.'s right to keep a well armed milita, or as we call it now aday, a national guard.
And you need to open your eyes and read the Attorney General opinion that says the 2nd DOES cover an individuals right to keep arms. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't make them a redneck. I happen to own quite a few firearms, and plan to increase that number. It really breaks my heart that this offends you. Really. I just know that I would stand a better chance defending myself than just sitting by and letting someone rob me, or rape my wife.
The attorney general is NOT A JUDGE, he is the top cop of the nation. It is his job to follow the law not write it. So he can say what he wants, it will not hold up in court. every heard of the Constitution?? Why don't you give it a REAL read.
Ascroft is a sore loser that lost to a dead guy and pushs his beliefs on others. This from the man that wanted to cover the statue of justice as he thought it was obsene![]()
Originally posted by: DaZ
Just curious.. why?
Let me respond by quoting amendment IV then:Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd
Repealing the Second Amendment
Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea? Well, there's a reason. Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms. Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed. Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.
I own a gun to stop the democrat conspiracy, as written by Neal Boortz. Of course I believe most of what he wrote is in satire, but there are definitely partial truths and possibilities to all of it. I don't favor eroding liberties.
I'd also like to point out that the National Guard is a very half ass final interpretatoin of the second amendment. I'd also like to point out it says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms." Government controlled "militia" hardly represents the people.
EDIT:
:| I just want to reiterate Klah's point:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
And for all the dumb rednecks here The 2nd amendment does NOT protect your right to own a gun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are these different:
"..the right of the people peaceably to assemble.."
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."
So you believe all of the first 10 amendments apply to individuals except the 2nd?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seriously think we need to start going back to stricter interpretations of the constitution. Some things are just getting sick these days.
Oh my budda!!! Is english your second lang.? "People" is Plural, not Single. Such as YOU don't have the right to a gun, BUT "people" of a well armed milita (national guard) do!!!
There is NOT one current court case that has held up that says the 2nd stands for a persons right.
So by your reasoning it's not ok for the government to ransack a city looking for something, but the individual's rights are out the window? This society was founded on individual rights, not collective as you would have it. Maybe these collective interpretations are best for furthering the cause of a Stalin like yourself (though perhaps grammar nazi would have been more appropriate?), but I'll take my individual rights. :|The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Here you go Toolio......you might want to do a little reading...The Constitution says courts define law.
So show me one case that has held up and says the 2nd protects a person rights to a gun.
Supreme Court Cases on the 2nd Amendment
Originally posted by: Gaard
MercenaryForHire - <<And since I'm not going to be throwing ammo that hard>>
Pussy.![]()
