Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 55 of 61 FirstFirst ... 54552535455565758 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,100 of 1213
Like Tree82Likes

Thread: If the demographic fits, hope they don't acquit

  1. #1081
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Uness someone wants to discuss Tow missiles again, which by the way, aren't a firearm in the first place.
    The Constitution specifically states you have the right to bear "ARMS." It doesn't restrict one to firearms.

    Unless you have a different definition of "ARMS," TOW missiles qualify for that term.

    The point is that we as a nation very much restrict which "ARMS" we allow the citizen to possess.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #1082
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The Constitution specifically states you have the right to bear "ARMS." It doesn't restrict one to firearms.

    Unless you have a different definition of "ARMS," TOW missiles qualify for that term.

    The point is that we as a nation very much restrict which "ARMS" we allow the citizen to possess.
    No the point is when you realize that your dumb a z z point has been decimated by repeated posters you had to dance off into talking about TOW missiles. Seriously, you are so predictable.

    If you have something, like the previous right to own a marlin lever action .22 rifle, and the law changes, for no reason other than absolutely ignorant beyond belief politicians want to label it as dangerous and as a possible assault weapon, and then ban it, your rights have been infringed. It is that simple. For no logical, sensible, or defensible reason your right to own that firearm was taken away. Hence you lost some of the rights you previously had. Now I understand as an accomodator you are okay with that. I on the other hand am not. Thankfully in my state I can still own a .22 caliber lever action rifle.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  3. #1083
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    No the point is when you realize that your dumb a z z point has been decimated by repeated posters you had to dance off into talking about TOW missiles. Seriously, you are so predictable.
    Your comments are so predictable. I pointed out what the Constitution says. Not what you believe it means.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #1084
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Your comments are so predictable. I pointed out what the Constitution says. Not what you believe it means.
    NO, your pointed out what you believe it means.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #1085
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    NO, your pointed out what you believe it means.
    Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    What part of my earlier statement was incorrect?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #1086
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:



    What part of my earlier statement was incorrect?
    See here is where your circular argument goes astray. You have at one point stated that the founding fathers could have no way envisioned 30 round magazines, and the weapons technology of today . Now you are saying they meant missiles as arms citizens could possess.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  7. #1087
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    See here is where your circular argument goes astray. You have at one point stated that the founding fathers could have no way envisioned 30 round magazines, and the weapons technology of today . Now you are saying they meant missiles as arms citizens could possess.
    Didn't say that at all. My point is the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit restrictions.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #1088
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Didn't say that at all. My point is the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit restrictions.
    Show me where it allows them...
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  9. #1089
    Forum Member HuntPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    #1. Yes. Everyone coming into possession of a firearm would have to pass a background check. LaFire gave a great example of where that is not happening. He buys the gun and then gives it to his neighbor, without the neighbor having any kind of background check. And the background check would be the same whether purchased from licensed dealer, tradeshow, etc. And the same check throughout the entire country.
    Thank you. That is the first that someone has defined "universal background checks" in this thread.


    #2. The unknown is how many crimes may have never been committed because a person couldn't get a gun due to a background check. There simply is no way to prove that. Just like there is no way to prove if fire prevention education ever prevented a fire.
    The FBI has the statistics. They show that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes were obtained illegally. The majority of the rest were not traceable as to how ownership was derived. The smallest minority used in crimes that were purchased legally, were just that, purchased legally. While the publicly available information does not state how many were purchased through gun shows or private transactions, you can rest assured that if the number were significant (or even existent) that those numbers would be touted on high by the current administration. That is why I ask for just one example where a legally purchased weapon that did not go through a background check would have been stopped by a background check - i.e. a weapon purchased at a gun show without a check that was used in a crime, but a check would have stopped the sale.


    What again, is the problem with universal background checks? Not asking for registration of guns, not asking for seizure of guns, etc.
    As I stated over 20 pages ago, I am not opposed to your definition of background checks as long as they take no longer than current ones, and there is no record kept of the check unless in the case of a failed check.

  10. #1090
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Show me where it allows them...
    The law allows government agencies to make those determinations.

    Scalia cited the relevant legal foundation in the comments I posted earlier.

    As I also pointed out earlier there are weapons that one is either not allowed to own or prohibited from owning.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #1091
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I think YOU have swung and missed. You are separating ownership of an item from the use of an item. Does it really make a difference? Would you accept a law that says you can own a particular gun but makes it illegal to ever USE that gun? It appears from your arguement that you would indeed accept such a law. You appear to be saying that a law that restricts you from owning the gun is an infringement but a law that restricts you from using the gun is not an infringement.

    Please clarify your position. I've asked you this before and you have not answered.
    captnjak, even better....they are discussing a proposed change to a law....one that did not even come to fruition...so they have no idea what additional stipulations may have been attached to it....like existing gun owners and their responsibilities to act with the new law. It's just pure conjecture on whether it would have made existing owners criminals immediately.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #1092
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntPA View Post
    ...The FBI has the statistics. They show that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes were obtained illegally. The majority of the rest were not traceable as to how ownership was derived...
    I actually just saw an article posted in my local Patch.com about a study done in Missouri and the rise in murders once they repealled their "gun control laws". Article was done by BBC so I didn't give it too much credit, but it stated some of their facts.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  13. #1093
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    No. The problem is that you think we all get to interpret the constitution for ourselves. We do not. We have a Supreme Court to do that.

    The definition you posted states that infringe means to WRONGLY limit or restrict. So you must then agree that limits and restrictions can also be applied RIGHTLY! And we have the Supreme Court to decide what is right and wrong.
    I'm not disagreeing with any of what you've said here. The issue is that while the Supreme Court might offer more explanation in their opinion, there's still no absolute until they hear the specific case. In the Heller case they ruled DC law violated the 2nd Amendment and in the opinion noted that the 2nd allows for restrictions but they did not detail how much restriction might constitute an infringement. Sooner or later someone will be brought up on a charge for violating the NY magazine limit or another similar law, and they'll push it (for many years) until it arrives back before the Supreme Court for a more definite answer on how restrictive states can be without an "infringement". It'll be a long road.

  14. #1094
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Name:  943776_509345329135097_1925573301_n.jpg
Views: 64
Size:  53.2 KB

    If George washington, the Father of our Country and the first President of the United States believed this, why would the current administration believe differently?

    Sufficient arms and ammunition...seems pretty clear what he meant. Be on a par with the firearms of the government to enable yourself to protect yourself from the government if need be.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  15. #1095
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Attachment 23326

    If George washington, the Father of our Country and the first President of the United States believed this, why would the current administration believe differently?

    Sufficient arms and ammunition...seems pretty clear what he meant. Be on a par with the firearms of the government to enable yourself to protect yourself from the government if need be.
    George Washington's personal opinion was not included in the text of the constitution. Therefore, his opinion is no more binding than the current president's opinion. Sad as that is to say.

    If we base gun laws on that quote, we would have not only the right but the need to own missiles, aircraft carriers. fighter jets, bombs, etc.
    Last edited by captnjak; 02-24-2014 at 10:10 PM.

  16. #1096
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    George Washington's personal opinion was not included in the text of the constitution. Therefore, his opinion is no more binding than the current president's opinion. Sad as that is to say.

    If we base gun laws on that quote, we would have not only the right but the need to own missiles, aircraft carriers. fighter jets, bombs, etc.

    The topic was dying so I thought I would wind it up again.

    By the way all,I want is an attack helicopter with a 7.62 mini-gun!

    I disagree with your opinion on George Washington's opinion. Since he was there, my guess is he is probably the best one to judge what they meant. Binding perhaps not...but legitimate none the less.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  17. #1097
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The topic was dying so I thought I would wind it up again.

    By the way all,I want is an attack helicopter with a 7.62 mini-gun!

    I disagree with your opinion on George Washington's opinion. Since he was there, my guess is he is probably the best one to judge what they meant. Binding perhaps not...but legitimate none the less.
    Absolutely legitimate. And waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more legitimate than the current guy. But it is up to the supreme court to judge what they meant.

  18. #1098
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Absolutely legitimate. And waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more legitimate than the current guy. But it is up to the supreme court to judge what they meant.
    And the supreme court is, and always will be, made up of political appointments supporting the party in power at the time of the appointment. Hardly unbiased no matter what side of the fence you are on. In fact a supreme court decision today could easily be overturned with no new evidence other than a change in personnel on the court and political ideology.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  19. #1099
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And the supreme court is, and always will be, made up of political appointments supporting the party in power at the time of the appointment. Hardly unbiased no matter what side of the fence you are on. In fact a supreme court decision today could easily be overturned with no new evidence other than a change in personnel on the court and political ideology.
    All true, but they are the ones who as per the constitution get to interpret the constitution. The court we have at any given moment is the one that counts. Until and unless they are overturned the buck stops with them.

  20. #1100
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Attachment 23326

    If George washington, the Father of our Country and the first President of the United States believed this, why would the current administration believe differently?

    Sufficient arms and ammunition...seems pretty clear what he meant. Be on a par with the firearms of the government to enable yourself to protect yourself from the government if need be.
    Just one problem. Washington had no problem excluding certain groups from being allowed to bear arms. Some of whom he knew personally. So really, there is no difference between him and the current administration.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PG soon.....we hope!?
    By arhaney in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 10:39 AM
  2. Not Exactly Fire Related, But It Fits.
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 10:48 AM
  3. Might there be hope?!!
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 11:04 AM
  4. Any Hope?
    By Kiernan in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 08:48 PM
  5. Hope for the best?
    By Bones42 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 08:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts