VADoc

Athens, OH

#1783 Jan 12, 2013
Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that interest you, is your right to own a gun, nothing else. And your paranoia of what Obama will do.
Are you another nut that believe there will be civil war over gun laws?
Yes my 2nd amendment right does interest me. Just like I'm sure your 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights interest you.

My paranoia of Obama is well founded. He comes from one of the most anti 2nd amendment cities in this country. He is surrounded by several anti gun hypocrites who exercise their 2nd amendment rights, but wish to remove mine. Lots to be afraid of. Some of us don't just bury our heads in the sand and hope the government does what is best for us.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1784 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2d amendment already has been restricted. Why hasn't it happened yet?
you can still get guns as of right now.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1785 Jan 12, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Junior, count the wars or 'offensives and police actions' the US has been engaged in since 1776. Like Indy says, start with the Civil War.
How about all those guns our military used to steal the native Ameicans land out from under them? That was acceptable to you? And giving them blankets laced with small pox to eliminate them?
You better take a sweeping look at your priorities.
What? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The topic was the need to have an armed populace to preserve First Amendment rights. How the hell that lead you conflicts with other nations and Native American genocide is beyond me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1786 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Civil War was over First Amendment rights? Huh.
its was over economics(free labor) and the guns were used to settled it.
VADoc

Athens, OH

#1787 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between us is that I don't live based on fear. I might die in a car crash, I might die of cancer, I might die of murder, I might die of old age. I will not die of fear.
You sound like you are very afraid of people having guns to me.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1788 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Hitler did and made it easier for people not to be able to resist change that German Society took.
Here's one for you, Indy.

The Hitler gun control lie

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1789 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you can still get guns as of right now.
You said we would become victims of a Stalinesque regime if gun rights were "restricted in any way."
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1790 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>its was over economics(free labor) and the guns were used to settled it.
Ok. But that misses the point on two levels. First, that isn't what the discussion was about. It was about the supposed inability to preserve first amendment rights without a populace armed with AR-15s. Second, the Civil War was a war between two nations, not a populace defending itself from an abusive government.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1791 Jan 12, 2013
VADoc wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like you are very afraid of people having guns to me.
Nope. Mostly, I am amused by the paranoia of gun people.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1792 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one for you, Indy.
The Hitler gun control lie
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_...
Gun politics in Germany

The 1938 German Weapons Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1793 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. But that misses the point on two levels. First, that isn't what the discussion was about. It was about the supposed inability to preserve first amendment rights without a populace armed with AR-15s. Second, the Civil War was a war between two nations, not a populace defending itself from an abusive government.
the Civil War a war between the people of one nation divided just like right with guns.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1794 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Gun politics in Germany
The 1938 German Weapons Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_...
Right. That was a liberalization of gun laws.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1795 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. That was a liberalization of gun laws.
made it a police state too for the jews.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1796 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>made it a police state too for the jews.
Yep. But one had nothing to do with the other.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1797 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>the Civil War a war between the people of one nation divided just like right with guns.
Not one nation at all. Remember that whole secession thing?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1798 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. That was a liberalization of gun laws.
besides the Jews were striped of the rights their to guns and sent to concentration camps and gased.

OF GENOCIDE AND DISARMAMENT

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
Guns and Violence Symposium, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995
Book Review, 247.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/katesandpolsby....
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1799 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>besides the Jews were striped of the rights their to guns and sent to concentration camps and gased.
OF GENOCIDE AND DISARMAMENT
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
Guns and Violence Symposium, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995
Book Review, 247.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/katesandpolsby....
You didn't read the article I provided, did you?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1800 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one nation at all. Remember that whole secession thing?
we where divided no state seceded.

Texas v. White

Texas v. White,(1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. In 1862 the confederationist government of the state transferred the bonds to several private individuals in payment for Confederate military supplies. After the Civil War the Reconstruction state government filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking to recover the bonds, then held by citizens of various states.

The suit contended that the transfer of the bonds was illegal because the bonds were not signed by the governor, as required by federal law. The defendants contended that, while a state may bring a suit in the Supreme Court, Texas had no such right in this case because it had seceded and, therefore, the federal law was not applicable at the time the bonds were transferred. The Supreme Court held that the intention of the Confederate States to secede meant that they had only temporarily lost privileges of Union membership but had not lost membership itself. Writing for the court, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Thus, the Supreme Court decreed by law what the Union’s Civil War victory had effected by force, namely, the principle that no state may secede from the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#1801 Jan 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>we where divided no state seceded.
Texas v. White
Texas v. White,(1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. In 1862 the confederationist government of the state transferred the bonds to several private individuals in payment for Confederate military supplies. After the Civil War the Reconstruction state government filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking to recover the bonds, then held by citizens of various states.
The suit contended that the transfer of the bonds was illegal because the bonds were not signed by the governor, as required by federal law. The defendants contended that, while a state may bring a suit in the Supreme Court, Texas had no such right in this case because it had seceded and, therefore, the federal law was not applicable at the time the bonds were transferred. The Supreme Court held that the intention of the Confederate States to secede meant that they had only temporarily lost privileges of Union membership but had not lost membership itself. Writing for the court, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Thus, the Supreme Court decreed by law what the Union’s Civil War victory had effected by force, namely, the principle that no state may secede from the Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Dude, come on. The Confederate States seceded from the union and formed their own government. We had a war. The United States won. That is not an arguable point. The case you cited is about the legal effects of the secession in the aftermath of the war.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1802 Jan 12, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, come on. The Confederate States seceded from the union and formed their own government. We had a war. The United States won. That is not an arguable point. The case you cited is about the legal effects of the secession in the aftermath of the war.
in their mind they did but legally no.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Man Shot Multiple Times In North Columbus Alley 3 hr Big Johnson 6
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 3 hr Male 4,553
BizzyBee Catman Gokeefe et al 3 hr gokeefe 78
benghazi! 5 hr Neutral Party 9
People Forced To Move Out Of Columbus Motel Tha... 6 hr They cannot kill ... 3
5 MILLION NEW WORKERS - Omg! 6 hr They cannot kill ... 7
Ronald Reagan gave blanket amnesty to 3 million... 7 hr Neutral Party 19
impeachment 7 hr Duke for Mayor 56
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:27 pm PST

ESPN12:27PM
Browns' Cameron cleared, returns to practice
Bleacher Report 9:05 PM
Previewing Browns vs. Falcons
NFL10:35 AM
Cleveland Browns officially activate Josh Gordon
Bleacher Report10:39 AM
Alfred Blue Primed for Big Week 12 Showing with Arian Foster's Status in Doubt
NBC Sports 4:07 PM
Browns activate Josh Gordon, set for season debut - NBC Sports