Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 119
  1. #51
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    OP boiled down:

    Brown people good.

    White people bad.

    Orange man bad.

  2. #52
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    And:

    Orange fan mad.
    Yes, I'm very upset.

  3. #53
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    Also, why does the pro-gun crowd always leave out that pesky "well regulated militia" part?

    Now granted, we can interpret that phrase in a limitless amount of ways and gun-grabbers have went so far as to claim well regulated militia means military, but if we simply interpret the words by their definitions (regulated: controlled or supervised; militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency), I read the phrase to mean "a well trained and trusted (through supervision) civilian population." So requesting prospective gun owners to take a thorough gun safety class and to be of a certain age (21-25) and have a certain background (i.e. not be convicted of violent crime) doesn't in any way trample on your 2nd amendment right.

    It's organizations like the NRA that actually trample on the 2nd amendment in their undermining of the well regulated militia concept in order to make guns as easily obtainable as cheeseburgers.

  4. #54
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    how do hong kong and singapore stop mass shooters oh wait they just dont have any
    Except the ones committed by the government.

  5. #55
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    "Shall not be infringed"

  6. #56
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    More on this point. I could argue that I do under the 1st amendment.
    So you think you are protected by the First Amendment to use any frequency you wish to transmit and receive?

  7. #57
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,159
    In what world does selling a killing machine to a former felon convicted of an aggravated crime make sense? "Well, he paid his debt to society, so he's a de facto free man now and should enjoy all the life, liberty, and happiness pursuits guaranteed by the cons ution." Sex offenders are typically banned from using computers/internet for life, banned for life from being within certain distances of schools, playgrounds, etc. This tramples on the sex offender's freedom of speech and freedom of association rights to a degree, but we all see it as a sensible post-incarceration restriction because sex offenders are recividist threats. Violent felons usually are, too.
    I didn’t think a convicted felon could own a gun right out of prison.

  8. #58
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    You're not much of a conversationalist here. I don't spend too much energy on you. You take a shot and disappear.

  9. #59
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Also, why does the pro-gun crowd always leave out that pesky "well regulated militia" part?

    Now granted, we can interpret that phrase in a limitless amount of ways and gun-grabbers have went so far as to claim well regulated militia means military, but if we simply interpret the words by their definitions (regulated: controlled or supervised; militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency), I read the phrase to mean "a well trained and trusted (through supervision) civilian population." So requesting prospective gun owners to take a thorough gun safety class and to be of a certain age (21-25) and have a certain background (i.e. not be convicted of violent crime) doesn't in any way trample on your 2nd amendment right.

    It's organizations like the NRA that actually trample on the 2nd amendment in their undermining of the well regulated militia concept in order to make guns as easily obtainable as cheeseburgers.
    The Supreme Court left out the well regulated militia part.

  10. #60
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    lol Stephen King is that you?



  11. #61
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    Sooner or later, your ’s getting infringed on, whether you like it or not. Orange Man just guaranteed it
    Nah, I'm good.

  12. #62
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    So you think you are protected by the First Amendment to use any frequency you wish to transmit and receive?
    HAM radio frequencies are for public use.

  13. #63
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    HAM radio frequencies are for public use.
    Because they are assigned as such by the Federal Communications Commission but they are not for public use because of the Cons ution.

  14. #64
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    The Supreme Court left out the well regulated militia part.
    Are you referring to Scalia playing loose with the definition? Before the NRA started lobbying in the late-70s, the definition of the amendment was quite to clear to previous supreme courts. But yeah, let's just arbitrarily not consider a part of the amendment because it's politically convenient. The founders inserted the "well regulated militia" phrase for a reason.

  15. #65
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Are you referring to Scalia playing loose with the definition? Before the NRA started lobbying in the late-70s, the definition of the amendment was quite to clear to previous supreme courts. But yeah, let's just arbitrarily not consider a part of the amendment because it's politically convenient. The founders inserted the "well regulated militia" phrase for a reason.
    Well we can't turn to the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Bill of Rights only when it suits us. There is precedence and that's what counts.

    Caetano v. Massachusetts(2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that cons ute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

    The founders also inserted shall not be infringed upon but the courts have interpreted that as meaning not Unlimited. I've seen that use here time and again as a defense for over the top gun control suggestions.

    The founders did not say only to support a well regulated militia.

    Transportation to and from your job being vital to the livelihood of your family, your right to drive a vehicle shall not be infringed upon.

    So if you lose your job do you lose your right to drive?

  16. #66
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    Because they are assigned as such by the Federal Communications Commission but they are not for public use because of the Cons ution.
    Point is they are for public use ultimately, but to be a HAM radio operator, you need to display competence with the equipment through a licensing procedure. I can say this "draconian" licensing procedure prevents/inconveniences me from broadcasting my opinions (or using them to inform people in my area when an emergency happens) to a wider audience on these so-called public frequencies set aside by the government, thus placing a restriction on my 1st amendment rights.

  17. #67
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Point is they are for public use ultimately, but to be a HAM radio operator, you need to display competence with the equipment through a licensing procedure. I can say this "draconian" licensing procedure prevents/inconveniences me from broadcasting my opinions (or using them to inform people in my area when an emergency happens) to a wider audience on these so-called public frequencies set aside by the government, thus placing a restriction on my 1st amendment rights.
    Would you like for the HAM radio community to be like reddit or 4Chan?

    I can buy a radio without getting any kind of license. I just won't get a number or call sign. Same with handguns. I can't conceal a handgun legally without going through lengthy class and vetting procedure from the federal government and local authorities. That's probably ten times more than what a ham radio operator has to go through.

  18. #68
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    Well we can't turn to the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Bill of Rights only when it suits us. There is precedence and that's what counts.

    Caetano v. Massachusetts(2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that cons ute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."
    Conservatives tend to be cons utional literalists, and I agree. The 2nd amendment uses pretty clear language in my opinion. I suppose it's up to us to decide who and what is "well regulated." Is an 18 year old "well regulated?" Does "well regulated" mean trained? But ultimately, the word regulated exists in the phrase, and regulated means "supervised." A kid walking into a gun shop on his 18th birthday to buy a shotgun without question doesn't meet the criteria of "supervised."

  19. #69
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    Would you like for the HAM radio community to be like reddit or 4Chan?
    Exactly! That's why the restrictions make sense. On the same token, I don't want my city's community to look like the Wild West nor do I want my educational community (i.e. schools) to like a prison, with armed guards around, metal detectors, and active shooter drills.

  20. #70
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Conservatives tend to be cons utional literalists, and I agree. The 2nd amendment uses pretty clear language in my opinion. I suppose it's up to us to decide who and what is "well regulated." Is an 18 year old "well regulated?" Does "well regulated" mean trained? But ultimately, the word regulated exists in the phrase, and regulated means "supervised." A kid walking into a gun shop on his 18th birthday to buy a shotgun without question doesn't meet the criteria of "supervised."
    It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.

    Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.

  21. #71
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    100,825
    It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.
    its pretty weird that in a 27 word amendment, 13 of the words are just throwaways and merely a suggestion...

    Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.
    i mean yeah everything is legal until there is a law that makes it illegal

  22. #72
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    It doesn't list regulated militia as being a requirement to own a firearm though. It just says that the right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon and gave one reason why, but that doesn't make it the only reason. An 18 year old can certainly join the Army and get shot in the face.

    Also the Second Amendment doesn't grant that right, the right already existed which is why it says it shall not be infringed upon.
    Their grammatical rules were a bit different then. In modern parlance, it would read: "The rights of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This was clear to previous Supreme Courts before the NRA turned into a lobbying firm.

    Furthermore, the government infringes on your 2nd amendment rights anyway by not allowing you to own anything beyond small arms. The 2nd amendment never future proofed itself nor did it specify small arms only. But we don't allow civilians to own SAMs because it makes sense. I think desiring that responsible, trained, and vetted citizens are the only citizens allowed to own firearms makes sense.

  23. #73
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    27,061
    Exactly! That's why the restrictions make sense. On the same token, I don't want my city's community to look like the Wild West nor do I want my educational community (i.e. schools) to like a prison, with armed guards around, metal detectors, and active shooter drills.
    I also don't want to be forced into buying a gun because I have to worry about the other guy with a gun. But if I know the other guy with the gun went through a comprehensive training course, has a spotless criminal history, and was psychologically evaluated, then I don't have to worry nearly as much. The corollary is driving. When you take the road, you have at least some comfort knowing you're on the road with fellow licensed drivers. If you had to take the road knowing that everyone can be allowed to drive once they turn 16, the situation becomes a lot more stressful.

  24. #74
    NostraSpurMus phxspurfan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    14,364
    RIP laser optics

  25. #75
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    Psychological evaluation to purchase a gun sounds very Orwellian to me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •