"No-ban" pre-ordering going on now...Agree or not?

It's not a retreat. You have you mind made up and disreagard any amount of information to the contrary of what you believe to be true. No sense trying to have a discussion with a closed minded individual.

Nice. Try to insult me because we have different beliefs. Nice.

The parts I bolded were based on the rulings of the courts. Nice disingenuous intepretation of factual information because you don't like the source.

I'm done with this discussion Sam. Fell free to hurl another insult if you wish. Enjoy YOUR sour grapes and YOUR weekend also.

 

See, that's where you have it all wrong. I support a National Retail Sales tax to replace our antiquated and socialist income tax system. So it would not be "money for nothing." Our income tax flat-out punishes achievement and is counter-productive to economic growth.

I know you liberal wimps love to read into that "well-regulated" militia phrase, but if you are any student of history, the militia was the ENTIRE, able-bodied male populace. Everybody was needed to fight the Indians threatening to sack, rape and later burn the town. As for your argument that "only the national guard and police should have guns," why would that needed to be put into the Bill of Rights to be protected if only the govt. had a right to keep and bear arms? The Bill of Rights was intended to protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms from tyranny.

I think that was the intent of the Founders, as stated in the below quotes:

I think that just put a torpedo into the hull of your weasely little insistance that the 2nd Amendment was not intended as a check and balance on a good govt. gone bad.

I know you're afraid of guns and afraid of other people with guns. That's all fine and dandy, but keep your filthy fingers out of my gun cabinet. If you want to ban guns in NYC (and yet you still have a very high crime rate, real effective policy there!), go ahead. But don't force me and others to live under your empty-headed ideas nationwide.

I know you must think that I'm some kind of backwoods redneck who loves his guns, but it goes deeper than that. It's about independence and self-reliance. As far as I'm concerned, you're not much of a man at all if you lack the capability or will to protect your family.

When you live 30 minutes away from help, you'd better be armed lest armed intruders deprive you of life and liberty. Home invasions have become the norm recently in Georgia, but I'd almost would feel sorry for anyone who tried to invade my home. If given the choice between ensuring my own safety and trusting govt. implicitly, I'd trust myself every time.

 

May I ask why Sam's the only one who does this? I haven't seen you change your mind or really regard any of the information he's posted. Y'all've done exactly the same thing, just arguing different sides.

BTW, where's my nuclear war head? Surely you don't mind if I try and obtain one, right?

 

Not true. I respect his position. I pointed out that much like the bible the constitution is open to interpretation and noted how he zeroed in on the area which promotes his view point.

Quote Sam...
"Rather it says that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

And I zeroed in on the portion that that promotes mine...

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

No problem there. He stated...

"The last supreme court case on the topic was decided in 1939, and to my knowledge, continues to be the supreme law of the land today"

I provide information to the contrary which he dismissed because he didn't like the source. I doubt he even read it or my post. I started my post with...

"Of course you will find data in here that supports your view also but I bolded the parts that support mine. Saying that most courts agree with 1939 miller is a bit of an over statement."

I respect his point of view but he doesn't respect mine. Then he tried to imply I wasn't smart enough to understand. Nice. This is why I rarely venture into the D&D. Too many closed minds with the I'm right you are wrong attitude.

And as far as your nuclear war head question... surely you can see the difference between our right to bear arms to provide for our own protection, and the right to own a weapon that could wipe out millions of people, damage the ecosystem for many years, and level the city. I don't mind if you try to obtain one though it's your life and you run the risks associated with your actions.

 

I guess I've just seen Sam a lot worse.

It seems like a real man could protect his family without a semi-automatic weapon. Just me though.

 

That is just ridiculous exaggeration. Of course people shouldn't be allowed to build nukes in their garages. But that is a stretch to say the least between nukes and rifles.

 

Of course it's a ridiculous exaggeration. It's made to prove a point. I, and most people who are for gun control, are not out to take away your guns. We're out to take away the unnecessary ones, which we believe assault weapons are. The exaggeration just shows that even you are willing to infringe upon someone's right to bear arms.

If you can't protect your family with a shotgun or a pistol, twhich I believe every non-felon American of age should have a right to do, then you're probably not going to do much better with an assault weapon.

 

I guess I haven't ventured in here enough to see people at their worst. Thanks for going easy on me Sam.

I agree you don't need a semi to protect your family. I have a 5 foot high fence with big spikes on it all the way around my house, a german shepard, an alarm, locks on the door, a phone to dial 911, and 12 gauge as a last resort in case the police are running late.

I've had to get the gun out once (the heights is the hood you know) but luckily the cops got there and arrested the guy before he made it in the house. He fought them on my front porch and jumped through the front porch railing down 8 feet to the ground and tried to get away but they caught him from behind as he tried to clear the fence and get away.

 

See, I ain't got no problem with that. I'm also glad to see that you use other means to protect your home as well (not saying bamaslammer doesn't, or doesn't need protection, especially where he apparenly lives).

 

Well then, why ban them? Why are they unnecessary? A lot of pistols are semi-auto? Why not stop at just rifles? See the slippery slope there? How does it hurt you for me to have what you consider an "unnecessary" weapon? If you use the rationale of those who argued against them, anything that is unnecessary in your estimation should be banned. We all agree there should be SOME regulation, but where it stops is where we disagree.

 

I do no doubt that you do. Sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation, and since you time and time again prove yourself to be the most intellectually regressive member of the board, one is hardly surprised by the neat resonance.

On a separate tangent, this reminds me of something I heard the other day. Some blowdried jackass at a third-tier Illinois college was talking about Alan Keyes' candidacy. This idiot was the president of the campus Young Republicans or some such. Anyway, his assertion was that (thyat) It's time for government to support fyamily vyalues and old-fyashioned American vyalues etc. etc. and all that other meaningless tripe. And I'm sitting there thinking You dumb monkey, the foundational ethos of the party you claim to represent emphasizes states' rights over federal rights, and what you are advocating is federal supremacy.

You Right Wing Nutjobs sure are inscrutable.

 

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with this guy:

Nyrocket, you wonder why you're on ignore. A national retail sales tax would only tax CONSUMPTION. There would be no money taken out of your paycheck anymore. You leftists love the idea of controlling behavior through tax breaks, eh? Buy a hybrid car, get a break, build a windmill, get a break, so on and so on in an effort to influence behavior. Well, two can play that game. Imagine a tax system that took nothing from your paycheck and was only added to what you bought. No longer would interest and dividends be taxable. People could either pay more by buying cigarettes and beer...or they could invest and pay nothing.

As for all of this right wing morality police horsecrap you "enlightened" liberals love to spout off about, I'm definitely NOT one of those guys. Anyone who believes that prostitition and pot should be legal is NOT one of those folks.

Here is a summary of the Fair Tax plan.

link
How could any one reject this except the far left who are always howling to "soak the rich?" This would be the most fair way to tax people. And besides, the income tax is intriniscally unfair, because its higher rates as you climb the income brackets is simple punishment of achievement. Oh, and moron, read this:

link
Regressive my ass, you Michael Moore worshipping, America-hating, brain-dead, sorry excuse for a human being. Back to ignore with you!

 

That must be awfully appealing to a backwoods survivalist type like you. Roaming the holler, hunting squirrel and possum with automatic weapons - why, capture rainwater in a barrel and barter for clothing and you could end up paying no tax a'tall!

I guess you would have to pay tax on ammo, though. No getting around that one.

And a nice day to you, too sir!

 

Did you even mention Moore nyrocket?

 

VoodooPope

The militia clause expressly limits and modifies the second clause.

I don't doubt what the second clause says, however, the operative part is the limitation, a limitation that is not present in other declarative rights. Accordingly, when shaft-stroking lead pumpers like Roxrant bring themselves to orgasm by screaming about it.

I note that neither you, nor any of your little buddies, nor anything you managed to copy and paste in all of your "research" on this issue even begins to question the fact that the militia is not intended to protect citizens FROM the state, but for the security "OF the state", which makes the paranoid fantasy of taking shots at people in black helicopters irrelevant.

As for the legal point, I've been analyzing case law for several years. I gather from this statement, inter alia:

that you have little to no background in legal research. The parts you bolded were expressly not the rulings of the Court. (the "implicitly" is a dead giveaway as to the logical stretches that are being made.) The cases say nothing of the kind. Look them up if you want, but any lawyer worth his salt will tell you the same thing.

Let me give you a little background; there are certain things that Federal Courts are split about: For example, the 2nd Circuit and the 10th Circuit are split over whether employees acting in the course of their employment are liable for Civil RICO violations.

That the 2nd amendment creates an affirmative right to gun ownership is not one of the things federal courts are split about. No legitimate constitutional law scholar, even pro gun ones, and ones that feel the 2nd amendment SHOULD create an individual right of gun ownership, will tell you that the courts are split about it, such as in the Civl RICO example.

Look, I respect your belief that guns rights should be protected -- but there is no credible legal evidence as to the sub-issue that federal courts recognize the right as you -- or actually, the NRA garbage that you paste -- characterize it. You, and they, are simply wrong.

Oh, and by the way:

That is rich; not only did I read your post, but I went through the trouble of going to the source material -- the cases -- and explaining to you why, in purely legal terms, the NRA's self serving interpretation is wildly inaccurate. You didn't even bother to read or understand your post - you don't have to run out and get a JD, but you're a bit out of your element here.

bamaslammer: Nice quotes -- irrelevant and nonresponsive, as per usual, but nice quotes nonetheless.

 

Look Sam this is the last time I'm going to say it mostly because of you condesending holier than thou attitude.

If this was true our government would have already passed laws to register and/or go outlaw our constitutional right to own gun. Since I'm not in the militia and I legally own guns I'm going to continue to belive, until the courts tell me differently, this modifier you desperatly want to belive in doesn't modify my constitutional right to own a gun.

You can keep your attitude to yourself or refrain from passing it my way. I don't have any "little buddies" here and I don't have a "paranoid fantasy" which fuels my desire to own guns and provide for my (and my family's) protection. You rely on someone else to protect you and yours. I'll provide for mine. You fight to try to take away law abiding citizens rights and I will contine to support those who fight to prevent our constitutional rights from being modified and/or limited.

And I belive you are wrong, as do millions of other Americans. You have given me not one single shred of evidence to prove otherwise. There you have it. Stalemate.

Look you don't know a thing about me. You can keep your I'm right and you're wrong, you just don't ability to understand attitude to yourself. You can lay your head on your bed at night feeling all proud that you are so much smarter than everyone else, but you don't have me convinced.

I'm done with you Sam. You can fight the radicals on this issue here all you want. I'm not one of them. I'm just a guy who believes in personal rights and freedoms, mine and yours.

I'm done. With respect. Good day Sir.

 

Why does this follow? Simply because the government can regulate arms doesn't mean that it "would have passed" laws banning all guns. That is completely illogical.

there are all sorts of regulations on arms, including guns: you can't own nuclear weapons, RPG's, the Brady bill, you can't sell guns in New York City or Chicago --- etc. And every single time these laws are challenged on 2nd amendment grounds, they are held constitutional.

I'm not fighting for anything. I don't get why paranoids such as yourself and bamaslammer think that somebody is trying to raid your stupid gun cabinet, I could careless what you guys have in there. However, I see the benefits of the sale of assault rifles -- which you acknowledge have limited home defense value -- to be outweighed by the costs. Just like you say the same thing for nuclear weapons.

Those millions of Americans are wrong, they, like you, aren't trained lawyers or legal scholars, have not read the case law, and simply don't understand what it is that they're talking about. Hell, millions of americans believe that the moon landing never happend and that WMDs had been found in Iraq. Doesn't mean that they're right. It's like me claiming that an HK-MP5 is better at long range than an AK-47 -- something I have no clue about whatsoever.

I guess this is to underscore to yourself that you got a moral victory? Congrats.

Yeah, you better call me sir!

 

For the last time. I can't speak for bamaslammer but I'm not in the least bit paranoid.

Like most other Lawyers or Legal Scholars I know, you head is so big and your attitude so pompus you vision of reality is blinded by your own self serving superiority complex you fail to treat others with the respect they deserve.

I addressed you as sir out of respect that I was hoping you would be big enough to recipricate. Obviously you don't deserve my respect. I'd throw in a insult here but I'm not going to stoop to your level.