Gun Control Debate
Achron

Denver, CO

#6079 Oct 31, 2007
WaltBennett wrote:
To literally interpret the amendment, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be destroyed.
If you are permitted to own a gun, the right has not been destroyed.
1. to allow to do something: Permit me to explain.
2. to allow to be done or occur: The law does not permit the sale of such drugs.
3. to tolerate; agree to: a law permitting Roman Catholicism in England.
4. to afford opportunity for, or admit of: vents to permit the escape of gases.
–verb (used without object)
5. to grant permission; allow liberty to do something.
6. to afford opportunity or possibility: Write when time permits.
7. to allow or admit (usually fol. by of): statements that permit of no denial.

Now, given that the constitution is the law of the land and no other law should take precidence, the Permit issued by the state is unenforcible, as the constitution has already given us the right to bear arms, no need for 'extra premission' thus inforcing any penalty in lieu of is in direct violation of the law of the land and considered tratorious...so all smoke aside and in direct reference to the Facts at hand, though it does not bug me so much (systems already in place) there is no technicality behind it, it is a blatent violation.
Achron

Denver, CO

#6080 Oct 31, 2007
All and All, this Country was based on the rights of the individual being Soverign, the arguments for forcing gun control on a law abiding citizen is implying the rights of the government as soverign. This simply is not the case. Through all of this, my simple point has been, If we are not going to march to the tune set by our forfathers referenced as The United States of America, Then come up with a name and flag for your New Order and quit trying to use the guise of a once free and proud land.
Achron

Denver, CO

#6081 Oct 31, 2007
1 other little fly in the ointment, It is unlawful for any entity to pass a law that would make any of the enumerated rights a criminal act. Last nail in the coffin for you control freaks out there.
ya-hey

Rice Lake, WI

#6082 Oct 31, 2007
Achron wrote:
<quoted text>
Opposition to freedom, make no mistake, its writen in plain english. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not 1 Letter of these enumerated items shall be violated.
Not hard to understand. Change is a possibility, but dont be deceitful about it, changing/infringment for good or bad is just that, infringement. When you act like it wont change when implimenting a change, it makes you a liar and thus untrustworthy.
it wouldn't change because the term "arm" is not defined as to the extent of todays weapons. we will still technically be allowed "arms" but we will be regulating who they are distributed too.

once again a design that can not change dies. now do you want that with the second amendment?

didn't think so.
ya-hey

Rice Lake, WI

#6083 Oct 31, 2007
Achron wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont worry too much, it's his way. It's funny because he claims to want to make the public safer yet he does not take the public into account unless its under 'these people lose' coloumn on his check list. When you discount the very people you claim to want to protect you are either part of the government or just some extreamist with a vision.
how's the challenge going? seems like your minions are still angry.
Achron

Denver, CO

#6084 Oct 31, 2007
ya-hey wrote:
<quoted text>
it wouldn't change because the term "arm" is not defined as to the extent of todays weapons. we will still technically be allowed "arms" but we will be regulating who they are distributed too.
once again a design that can not change dies. now do you want that with the second amendment?
didn't think so.
Sorry, that wont work. Fact is your making the change, thus it is on you to prove that arm does not mean fire arm. Either way, given that it is covered under the 'terible impliment' thats twice it is in there and twice you must prove it false.

Not to mention as I said earlier, your law would make a right granted by the law of the land a criminal offense, thus there again...your dead in the water.
Achron

Denver, CO

#6085 Oct 31, 2007
ya-hey wrote:
<quoted text>
how's the challenge going? seems like your minions are still angry.
???? you all there today?
and again with the proclimation of anger, I'm going to send you some e-robes for your e-pulpit.
Anything new for me to shoot down today?

“Allow me to introduce myself”

Since: Sep 07

666 East Brimstone

#6086 Oct 31, 2007
There is always that moment of awkward silence when the truth manifests itsself in such pure form.
evelyn

United States

#6087 Oct 31, 2007
ya-hey wrote:
<quoted text>
it wouldn't change because the term "arm" is not defined as to the extent of todays weapons. we will still technically be allowed "arms" but we will be regulating who they are distributed too.
once again a design that can not change dies. now do you want that with the second amendment?
didn't think so.
Some people are talking about the beast system.(Biblical). I heard something of it on the radio one night.

“I”

Since: Feb 07

Canada

#6088 Oct 31, 2007
John Holliday

Clyde, NY

#6089 Oct 31, 2007
Michelle, you must control your urges.

"Man Put on Sex Offenders List After Trying to Have Sex with a Bicycle".

At least you made a list of some sort, "pigmilk".

:)
ghost

Atlanta, GA

#6090 Oct 31, 2007
Achron wrote:
<quoted text>
1. to allow to do something: Permit me to explain.
2. to allow to be done or occur: The law does not permit the sale of such drugs.
3. to tolerate; agree to: a law permitting Roman Catholicism in England.
4. to afford opportunity for, or admit of: vents to permit the escape of gases.
–verb (used without object)
5. to grant permission; allow liberty to do something.
6. to afford opportunity or possibility: Write when time permits.
7. to allow or admit (usually fol. by of): statements that permit of no denial.
Now, given that the constitution is the law of the land and no other law should take precidence, the Permit issued by the state is unenforcible, as the constitution has already given us the right to bear arms, no need for 'extra premission' thus inforcing any penalty in lieu of is in direct violation of the law of the land and considered tratorious...so all smoke aside and in direct reference to the Facts at hand, though it does not bug me so much (systems already in place) there is no technicality behind it, it is a blatent violation.
Rights are rights, because they are right!
John Hollidays Wife

Milwaukee, WI

#6091 Oct 31, 2007
"I NEED A MAN" !!!!!! Help me !!! SOS !!!!
PigMilks Wife

Milwaukee, WI

#6092 Oct 31, 2007
I'm coming to help baby !...Hang on !

“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#6094 Oct 31, 2007
WaltBennett wrote:
To literally interpret the amendment, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be destroyed.
If you are permitted to own a gun, the right has not been destroyed.
GO TO HELL:

"Who are these militia?[A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe,'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

It is not only our RIGHT, but our DUTY to be armed as the police and military. Shall NOT be infringed means EXACTLY that which was written. Government has ZERO delegated authority to encroach upon that SPECIFIC RIGHT in ANY way, shape or form. The Federalist Papers show this conclusively. And, they ARE the accepted explanation of We The People's Constitution.

“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#6095 Oct 31, 2007
WaltBennett wrote:
<quoted text>
Restrictions on a right are not de facto infringement.
I WANT TO CONTROL YOUR COWARDLY AND EFFEMINATE SPEECH AND WRITING. IS THAT PERMITTED, JACK@SS? NO, IT'S NOT. That NATURAL RIGHT, just as the NATURAL RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms, can only be punished for abuse or misuse. WHATEVER weapons the government owns, are the SAME ONES that their MASTERS - We The People get to own. There can be NO disparity of force allowed in our intended governmental system. In FACT, the People were ALWAYS INTENDED to be SUPERIOR, whether in weaponry or numbers. THE MASTER IS ALWAYS SUPERIOR TO THEIR 'servants'.
Nemo

Auburn Hills, MI

#6096 Oct 31, 2007
memphis wrote:
I'm confused. So, okay it's still early, bear with me. You mean there are 8 million people in NYC and 53 million in England & Wales total, right? And Britain has a law against guns I'm guessing? I haven't read into this, I'm just asking.
I am going to get a gun when I turn 21 next year. With all the crazy shit going on in America, being a 100lb girl I need some way of protecting myself! What else should I do?!
Gain about 25 lbs and take up Karate! Don't just buy a gun unless you really think you are willing to kill someone in self defense....I've found that staying out of dangerous situations is a lot better than depending on carrying a gun..I've carried a gun for the past forty years and I am very thankful that I have never had to use it.....'Staying' out of trouble is always a lot easier and better than 'Getting' out of trouble...
breaking the news

Sylmar, CA

#6097 Oct 31, 2007
PigMilks Wife wrote:
I'm coming to help baby !...Hang on !
Michael, Getting a little stuffy in that broom closet.Do your mom and dad know.
ya-hey

Rice Lake, WI

#6098 Nov 1, 2007
Achron wrote:
<quoted text>
What a reach, if you gathered that from 'Criminals dont obey laws, hence the term criminal' then you are lost. Fact is, commiting crime is illegal, did the first law stop it? This is about bringing down the crime rate right? Hence making more laws is futile, given that they did not obey the fist 20 of them. Again I fail to see how you logically deducted your statement above. Unless it was another effort to twist reality into support of your cause. New laws a deterrent? Yes, could be considered. Old laws a deterrent, uh, yea as they have always been. Quantifiable differnce: NONE. It is simple illusion that there would be a difference....
na. your just getting pissy. remember though,, just because people WANT something that works this doesn't mean they WANT more of the same.
John Holliday

Clyde, NY

#6099 Nov 1, 2007
breaking the news wrote:
<quoted text>Michael, Getting a little stuffy in that broom closet.Do your mom and dad know.
As soon as Michelles mom and dad found out about her "closet existence", she moved into that heavy duty corrugated cardboard box under some bridge in Wisconsin. As you can see, she offers no logical points to debate, just foolishness and stupidity.
We can at least laugh at her butt buddy ya-hoo and all of his/her question dodging and hysterical "solutions" like "exploding stink paint UPS packages that also electrocute thieves and ganstas and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Michelle is without doubt a reason for birth control or at least coitus interrupts.....that means "pulling out" for the two idiots from Wisconsin.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Tide with Beach 864,338
"Children of DISOBIENCE": U R of your FATHER...... 25 min Doctor REALITY 2
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 28 min Great Day of Arma... 40,865
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 38 min Peace_Warrior 612,900
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr Neelakaran 7,492
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Liam 599,552
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 1,974
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 6,432
More from around the web