Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

US Man kills Tenants over Snow Shovelling

178 posts in this topic

Posted

I like how you ignore my posts when you don't have an argument against it.

If the Second Amendment was to be taken seriously then civilians should have access to the same weapons that the government does, tanks, jets, submarines, missiles, nuclear weapons.

Do you think a civilian militia should have access to these?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There is nothing to interpret. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed how am I interpreting that to fit my agenda? I am taking it as it is put forth in the 2A. You are interpreting it to fit your agenda instead of taking it literally which is how it was meant to be taken.

Even if we accept that, you yet again ignored the idea that the constitution could be amended to restrict access to firearms. Laws should evolve to reflect modern society. That happened with slavery, so why not with firearms? Oh yeah, that's because it doesn't suit your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like how you ignore my posts when you don't have an argument against it.

If the Second Amendment was to be taken seriously then civilians should have access to the same weapons that the government does, tanks, jets, submarines, missiles, nuclear weapons.

Do you think a civilian militia should have access to these?

Sorry so many people respond to my comments its hard to respond to them all. Ok, look first you said about armed police and all that. The courts ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect individuals and are to serve the community as a whole so I can't count on a police officer to protect me at all times. Also it takes any where from 10-15 minutes sometimes even longer for police to respond. How am I suppose to count on them to save me? Also you say we don't need guns because we have armed police, well why do they need to be armed if we're not armed? Are you saying that some people still might be armed so the police need to carry firearms?

Now to your all nukes,tanks comment. No, a militia isn't an artillery unit, it is foot soldiers, so we should be armed with rifles, standard for foot soldiers.

Even if we accept that, you yet again ignored the idea that the constitution could be amended to restrict access to firearms. Laws should evolve to reflect modern society. That happened with slavery, so why not with firearms? Oh yeah, that's because it doesn't suit your argument.

The second amendment doesn't force anyone to own a firearm. U.S citizens can choose to own one if they can pass a background check. So trying to compare the two is just silly.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are all kinds of silly laws that no one enforces, what's your point?

yes you are correct that all kinds of silly laws exist. According to some, YOUR right to bear arms is a silly law that was written for a different purpose than what its being used for now. The point is laws change and can change if the people want it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yes you are correct that all kinds of silly laws exist. According to some, YOUR right to bear arms is a silly law that was written for a different purpose than what its being used for now. The point is laws change and can change if the people want it.

And most on this forum are from other countries that are not effected by them. You all love to preach fear and hate towards gun owners. You all want to make people believe that in the U.S as soon as I open my front door I get shot at which isn't the case. Why don't you recognize that the over all murder and violent crime rate in the U.S has been falling since 92'. Why isn't it increasing?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Now to your all nukes,tanks comment. No, a militia isn't an artillery unit, it is foot soldiers, so we should be armed with rifles, standard for foot soldiers.

The second amendment doesn't force anyone to own a firearm. U.S citizens can choose to own one if they can pass a background check. So trying to compare the two is just silly.

So you expect a bunch of people with rifles to be able to fight against the government that has tanks, and aircraft that can take you out from miles away?

Thats how silly the second amendment is in this day and age.

And most on this forum are from other countries that are not effected by them. You all love to preach fear and hate towards gun owners. You all want to make people believe that in the U.S as soon as I open my front door I get shot at which isn't the case. Why don't you recognize that the over all murder and violent crime rate in the U.S has been falling since 92'. Why isn't it increasing?

Why does it matter what country I am from, I already stated that I have family in the US which you conveniently ignored, its clear Americans don't give a toss so the only people who can are dirty foreigners.

If you don't get shot as soon as you open the front door then why do you need guns?

It's quite chilling that people used weapons based on military hardware for fun and recreation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So you expect a bunch of people with rifles to be able to fight against the government that has tanks, and aircraft that can take you out from miles away?

Thats how silly the second amendment is in this day and age.

With a rifle you can take a machine gun, with a machine gun you can take a helicopter and so on. Heavier weapons can be captured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But you just said all a militia needs is a rifle?

If you wanted to take the second amendment literally (which is clearly not meant to be in this day and age) you would need equal hardware to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But you just said all a militia needs is a rifle?

If you wanted to take the second amendment literally (which is clearly not meant to be in this day and age) you would need equal hardware to the government.

What did I just say. A rifle can be used to capture a machine gun, a machine gun can capture a helicopter for example. With a rifle bigger weapons can be had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The second amendment doesn't force anyone to own a firearm. U.S citizens can choose to own one if they can pass a background check. So trying to compare the two is just silly.

You're not even reading what I post, because that clearly wasn't in response to anything I wrote.

To continue: the second amendment doesn't state what types of weapons should be allowed, so why shouldn't people be allowed to own rocket launchers or nuclear weapons? Once you accept that there should be limits the question becomes where they should be. If you don't accept that there should be any restriction, well... that's just not a sane position.

With a rifle you can take a machine gun, with a machine gun you can take a helicopter and so on. Heavier weapons can be captured.

The same applies without weapons. A crowd can overrun an army unit and take their weapons, which can be used to acquire bigger weapons and so on. Further, there are other countries on the planet you know - they could intervene to protect against an oppressive government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In the article it also mention rent issues, in addition to snow.

Still no excuse for landlord actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're not even reading what I post, because that clearly wasn't in response to anything I wrote.

To continue: the second amendment doesn't state what types of weapons should be allowed, so why shouldn't people be allowed to own rocket launchers or nuclear weapons? Once you accept that there should be limits the question becomes where they apply. If you don't accept that there should be any restriction, well... that's just not a sane position.

The same applies without weapons. A crowd can overrun an army unit and take their weapons, which can be used to acquire bigger weapons and so on. Further, there are other countries on the planet you know - they could intervene to protect against an oppressive government.

What? First you all come at me with your silly you can't use guns to fight off the military they have tanks!! Now you're telling me unarmed citizens can over run military unites? With what harsh words? Let me know when the first amendment can stop a hail of bullets..
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What did I just say. A rifle can be used to capture a machine gun, a machine gun can capture a helicopter for example. With a rifle bigger weapons can be had.

Yeah that's working well in places like the Middle East.

You wouldn't stand a chance against the government if they brought the might of the armed forces down on any civilian militia, which is why the second amendment doesn't make sense in this day and age.

You are just hiding behind an outdated law to justify your use of military based weapons for fun and recreation. You don't care about the second amendment or the fact kids are dying because of morons with weapons, purely because it supports your "hobby", if it didn't you wouldnt think it fit to wipe your arse with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah that's working well in places like the Middle East.

You wouldn't stand a chance against the government if they brought the might of the armed forces down on any civilian militia, which is why the second amendment doesn't make sense in this day and age.

In Syria they are shooting down jets with captured AA guns and captured missiles. They are setting IED's for tanks. You don't think that it could happen in the U.S??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

someone we know is living in a "Red Dawn" mentality... lol

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In Syria they are shooting down jets with captured AA guns and captured missiles. They are setting IED's for tanks. You don't think that it could happen in the U.S??

Civil war has been happening for over a year now in Syria, with the kind of kit the US has there is NO chance a civilian militia would be able to stand against them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Civil war has been happening for over a year now in Syria, with the kind of kit the US has there is NO chance a civilian militia would be able to stand against them.

I didn't say it would be over quickly, I did however say things like "the kind of kit" the U.S has could be captured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

im sure your rifle will do well against wave upon wave of predator drones

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

... Further, there are other countries on the planet you know - they could intervene to protect against an oppressive government.

Oh, you mean like in Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

im sure your rifle will do well against wave upon wave of predator drones

And again your missing the point. Its not just rifles against the military the rifle is a tool used to gain access to other weapons..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't say it would be over quickly, I did however say things like "the kind of kit" the U.S has could be captured.

I give up, shoot yourselves for all I care, rise up against the government see how well that turns out for you, just don't shoot my family that emigrated to the US.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In Syria they are shooting down jets with captured AA guns and captured missiles. They are setting IED's for tanks. You don't think that it could happen in the U.S??

In Syria the rebels are being supplied weapons and intelligence by the CIA, so that's a terrible comparison.

What? First you all come at me with your silly you can't use guns to fight off the military they have tanks!! Now you're telling me unarmed citizens can over run military unites?

It's as preposterous as being able to overrun National Guard bases because people own rifles, which was exactly my point. It's strange how you find your own suggestion outrageous. Now you know what we have to put up with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In Syria the rebels are being supplied weapons and intelligence by the CIA, so that's a terrible comparison.

It's as preposterous as being able to overrun National Guard bases because people own rifles, which was exactly my point. It's strange how you find your own suggestion outrageous. Now you know what we have to put up with!

You don't have a clue how lightly guarded they are, there's one near me, its only guarded by like 1 soldier and a little guard house. Not that i'm planing on doing anything stupid like that but i'm just sayin that they're not that well guarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh, you mean like in Syria?

Oh you mean an army comprised of mostly 40+ year old Soviet Union weapons and around 60,000 dead so far? That Syria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

remember kids, guns don't kill people

remember kids, spoons make you fat :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.