Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

The primary and foremost point of emphasis on implimentation of the Comunist Manifesto is the disarming of the people.

Ryan: How does it feel to be a have much in favor with communists?

we have argued this point on and on again and I will ask you again:

if the founding fathers did not want everyone to be able to bare arms, why did everyone have guns back then and why is it that those rights now, 200 years later, are being threatened on attempt to be taken away?? because of communist such as yourself who buy into liberal cop outs such as gun control instead of taking the effforts to find the real reasons for the problems facing America today.----HEART PROBLEMS bro.
 
Last edited:
We should probably look at Australia as an example. Election polling or census questions located those who owned guns. The government passed laws to forbid gun ownership by private citizens. Armed with names of those who admitted to owning guns, the government required these and others to surrender their guns. As a result possibly, violent crime has increased. Conversely, look at Kenesaw Georgia where a gun is required in every household. Crime stats have dropped significantly.

When examining the constitutional wording that led to passage of the amendment that allows citizen ownership of guns, it seems to me we must look at the spirit of the letter, rather than the close scrutiny of the wording. We can assume all day long what was intended as interpretation, but given that America was fresh off the heels (and pretty much established as a result ) of a monarchy in which the people had few, if any rights, it was probably intended to be interpreted as citizens having some measure of defense against those attempting to duplicate the situation our then citizens had escaped.

How does that work now? If the government wants to get us then they will get to us without any problem. They have superior fire and manpower, as well as little chance for retaliation or legal action. However, since it is not nearly as likely as violent criminals coming to get us in our home, we can rest easy in the reality that while we may not be able to individually defend against governmental tyranny, we can defend ourselves against those who would violate our freedom to live in a free society. How can someone restrict the right of a law abiding citizen?

I state again, what are you going to do when the bad guys come...throw rocks? You better be able to throw them at least in the neighborhood of 1200 feet per second which would put you on par with the speed the bad guys will probably be throwing lead. Would you expect your wife or mom to be able to use a non firearm weapon, or even her bare hands against an enraged attacker to the extent that she would be able to go toe to toe on equal ground? This is not a rule as much as it is the general situation. I sleep better at night knowing that my wife is armed to the teeth and will not hesitate to kick someone off the planet with a centershot to the chest and one in the head if they try and harm our family.

It is strange to me that some of the same people who believe we should have freedom to have abortions and terminate a life, since it is a personal choice, but yet, that we are not responsible enough to terminate a life that is violently and criminally threatening ours and our families. I happen to agree with free choice, as it is in my opinion, responsibility that can usually be handled properly. Nonetheless, it is ironic to me that we should be able give life as we choose--as well as destroy unborn humans--but not take it from those who would place ours in jeopardy.

It is also strange to me that anyone professing to be a fighter for the freedom and equality of all American citizens can want to jeopardize their individual right to the American Dream by limiting the ability of those same citizens to resist with necessary force those who would happily take it from us in their own criminal quest. The best quote I have ever heard from the gun supporters: God created men, Samuel Colt made them equal.

If we can limit the stats to one group for a moment: how many licensed Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) owners have been convicted of carrying out violent crime?
 
huntmaster said:
because of communist such as yourself who buy into liberal cop outs such as gun control instead of taking the effforts to find the real reasons for the problems facing America today.----HEART PROBLEMS bro.

So now people who support gun control are communists? You seriously think Barrister Ryan is a commie?
 
RyanH said:
The Attorney General is now seeking to turn the 2nd amendment on its head by seeking to overturn a decades long Justice Department position that there is NO private, constitutional right to bear arms.
2ND AMENDMENT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME, HOSS. "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". A MILITIA IS NOT THE ARM OF THE STATE. WELL REGULATED MEANS YOU GET A LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED.

In short, Attorney General Ashcroft incorrectly asserts that an individual has a constitutional, individual right to bear arms, even though a more critical reading of the 2nd amendment says otherwise---only state militias have the fundamental right to bear arms.
NO. A MILITIA IS FUNDAMENTALLY NOT AN ARM OF THE STATE. I WILL REFER YOU TO THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

Forget the fact that firearms claimed almost 30,000 lives last year.
CAR ACCIDENTS CAUSED FAR MORE. SO DID SMOKING AND EATING FATTY FOODS.

Instead, the extremist, Attorney General
COMMA IN THE WRONG PLACE, HOSS. IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE ADJECTIVE 'EXTREMIST' AT LEAST DO IT WITH A MODICUM OF GRAMMATICAL CORRECTNESS.


is arguing that imposing any restrictions on gun ownership should require a new Supreme Court standard which would require that private, gun ownership be recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, via the 2nd Amendment---an idea that would make gun regulations next to impossible to pass by Congress.
SO? HE'LL GET SHOT DOWN.


If the Attorney General has his way the new constitutional standard could lead to sweeping curbs on even the modest gun safety laws now in effect. Moreover, it could lead to severe changes in background checks, regulation of concealed weapons, and bans on guns such as assault rifle.
EARTH TO RYANH. YOUR STREET HOOD BUYING A PISTOL AIN'T DOING IT LEGALLY NOW.

At long last, the N.R.A. (killing machine)
10 TO 1 THAT NRA MEMBERS COMMITTED FEWER CRIMES PER CAPITA THAN NON-NRA MEMBERS. I WOULD BET MY LIFE ON THIS.

is getting its quid pro quo for its contributions to the Bush presidential election campaign. In the meantime, Supreme Court precedent is attacked, the Constitution is assaulted, and our nation's health might be sacrificed all because the N.R.A (killing machine) has all but bribed the Republican party.......Bang, Bang,====sold out!
WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND FREEDOM, COME AND LET ME KNOW SO I CAN STOP THINKING OF YOU AS A SHELTERED LITTLE CITY BOY.
 
I'm sorry but people put far too much value on human life.

Besides this, I bet if you take some type of statistic, the majority of wrongful deaths from bullet wounds come from guns that were gotten illegally. People with licenses don't run around killing people!
 
Boach said:
I'm sorry but people put far too much value on human life.


LET ME GUESS YOU BELIEVE WE ALL GO TO A WONDERFUL HAPPY PLACE IN THE SKY WHEN WE DIE, TO EAT QUICHE AND DRINK NECTAR? :rolleyes:

WE DON'T PUT TOO MUCH VALUE ON HUMAN LIFE. WE PUT TOO LITTLE VALUE ON PERSONAL FREEDOM.
 
2 ton hoss said:


LET ME GUESS YOU BELIEVE WE ALL GO TO A WONDERFUL HAPPY PLACE IN THE SKY WHEN WE DIE, TO EAT QUICHE AND DRINK NECTAR? :rolleyes:

WE DON'T PUT TOO MUCH VALUE ON HUMAN LIFE. WE PUT TOO LITTLE VALUE ON PERSONAL FREEDOM.

I'm sorry, but i've never tried quiche. Is it good?

I think freedom is more valuable than human life. Hell, there's so many of us anyways.
 
Boach said:


I'm sorry, but i've never tried quiche. Is it good?

I think freedom is more valuable than human life. Hell, there's so many of us anyways.

THAT IS FALSE. WITHOUT FREEDOM THERE WOULD STILL BE LIFE; WITHOUT LIFE THERE WOULD BE NO FREEDOM. THEREFORE LIFE IS NECESSARY TO HAVE FREEDOM, AND THEREFORE LIFE IS AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS FREEDOM.

WE PUT JUST ABOUT ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON LIFE.

WE DON'T PUT NEARLY ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON FREEDOM.

THE TWO CAN COEXIST, WITHOUT A DOUBT. IF YOU ARE TRULY INTENT ON FREEDOM THERE'S NO POINT IN CRYING ABOUT IT: GO LIVE IN THE NORTH WOODS. YOU'RE AS FREE UP THERE AS YOU WANT TO BE. LIGHT A FUCKING FIRE. SHOOT ALL THE GAME YOU WANT. FUCK A BEAR CUB. RAPE A TREE. IT'S ALL GOOD.

BY LIVING IN SOCIETY YOU IMPLICITLY GIVE UP SOME FREEDOMS (BUT YOU GAIN MANY AS WELL). IF YOU WANT TOTAL FREEDOM DON'T LIVE IN SOCIETY. IT IS A SIMPLE CHOICE. I MADE IT YEARS AGO, AND NOW I AM BACK.


BY THE WAY, A GOOD PARIS QUICHE IS FUCKING AWESOME. I NEED TO LEARN TO MAKE THAT SHIT.
 
2 ton hoss said:

THE TWO CAN COEXIST, WITHOUT A DOUBT. IF YOU ARE TRULY INTENT ON FREEDOM THERE'S NO POINT IN CRYING ABOUT IT: GO LIVE IN THE NORTH WOODS. YOU'RE AS FREE UP THERE AS YOU WANT TO BE. LIGHT A FUCKING FIRE. SHOOT ALL THE GAME YOU WANT. FUCK A BEAR CUB. RAPE A TREE. IT'S ALL GOOD.


Huh? I live in a city. Not too many trees around here.

BTW: I have no problem with freedom. I'm just saying--what's the big deal with deaths from guns? I mean, sure it sucks but life goes on. I'm not getting on some debate. Just saying a very generalized statement.

A lot of easily irritated people on this damn board.
 
Top Bottom