City of Chicago's gun ban....

[Becoming]

...

no argument here.

 

[p0ink]

if my city/state enacted a mandatory gun registration, not only would i say no, but fuck no.

registration leads to confiscation.

 

[milo hobgoblin]

exactly Poink.. it worked for Hitler.. it will work WELL for the liberals..


Look at one of the anti-gun advocates biggest (I mean that literally too) spokespeople...ROSIE O'DONELL.

 

[JKerry]

first of all, exactly what does jefferson et al mean when they say "arms". they didn't have the forsight to see that 99% of americans could one day afford fully automatic weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. could arms be large explosive devices (nukes). nobody has yet to ban "arms". only specific guns. Hamilton even goes further to say "properly armed" just exactly what does he mean by this (remember the time period)? nobody has yet to ban muskets. only handguns, sawed off shotguns, automatic weapons, large caliber rifles. correct, "no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -jefferson. however certain types of arms have clearly been deemed unneccessary and hence banned, just ask the supreme court. i doubt those justices are deliberately contradicting the constitution. on another note, jefferson loses alot of credibility when one considers the plagiarism of locke in the constitution.

 

[p0ink]

first of all, exactly what does jefferson et al mean when they say "arms". they didn't have the forsight to see that 99% of americans could one day afford fully automatic weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. could arms be large explosive devices (nukes). nobody has yet to ban "arms". only specific guns. Hamilton even goes further to say "properly armed" just exactly what does he mean by this (remember the time period)? nobody has yet to ban muskets. only handguns, sawed off shotguns, automatic weapons, large caliber rifles. correct, "no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -jefferson. however certain types of arms have clearly been deemed unneccessary and hence banned, just ask the supreme court. i doubt those justices are deliberately contradicting the constitution. on another note, jefferson loses alot of credibility when one considers the plagiarism of locke in the constitution.

locke was a major influence in all of the founding fathers.

umm..madison was the father of the constitution, not jefferson.

 

[chewyxrage]

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

Wow. Now that is just rediculous

 

[manny78]

I like that quote from Freud

 

[milo hobgoblin]

Jkerry.. arms refers to the equivalent weapons loadout of the standard foot soldier. i.e. Assault rifle and pistol. (at that time it was muzzle loaded pistol/musket/rifle)

The idea is/was that the average citizen would have a fair chance to defend himself not only against an invading Army comparable to our own and that the average citizen could ALSO form up a militia capable of fighting off a tyranniocal government/military within our own borders.


If you actually READ much of what was written, not only in the constitution but also the comments BY the founders you would see very clearly that this was their intent.

But, as with most anti gun advocates.. you pick and choose ONLY what you want to see and use that to make your case.

You CANNOT pick and choose which parts of the constitution suit you.. you must take all or none (and leave). You want freedom of religion... guess what you MUST accept the right to bear arms .. they are written in the SAME constituion,.. you want taxation with representation.. .. you must accept the right to bear arms..


Dotn discard the parts you and your ilk do not like or accept... the majority of us Accept the document in its entirety.. byt the letter AND spirit. Fotrnately the revisionists in this country have NOt been able to change the words of the comments of these great men.. so we have in very clear text what their INTENT was when they wrote the consitution..

You cannot deny this. You simply have no ground to stand on.

 

[JKerry]

rather than take it by the letter and spirit, try looking at it organically. lots of things have changed since then. in a technologically changing world it does not seem feasible to load up every 18 year old with an automatic weapon and high cap magazine. i rest comfortable that the justices of the supreme court hold true to how i feel about limitations on arms.

 

[milo hobgoblin]

But how YOU feel isnt what matters. Its clearly stated what the law is.. that the government cannot deny any free man the right to bear arms.

And that organic bullshit is EXACTLY why things are so fucked up. People with that mindset mutate the constitution to what THEY want it to mean as opposed to what it was meant to be.. A STRICT limitation on the powers of government.

Its not a loose set of "guidelines" as you wish it to be. You dont like something.. "oh just change the constitution.. its organic" It doesnt work that way and until we cleanse our government of people who think that way.. this country will keep sprialing downward.

Jkerry you are not a liberal. You are a socialist. If you cannot accept our constituion by letter and spirit YOU NEED TO LEAVE.