- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Go on Michaelberry.com and check out the story of the woman who shot the illegal who broke into her house. We Texans don`t mess around!
So, it can't happen to you?
- Thread starter CourierDriver
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You will of course show where I ever said that I want them banned.
For some reason, I'll not be surprised when you fail, again.
So, for the record you don't want any guns banned? That is a yes or no question.
So, for the record, you can't show that I said I want them banned. Why am I not surprised?
Knew you couldn't show that I am trying to ban them. What a liar.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You will of course show where I ever said that I want them banned.
For some reason, I'll not be surprised when you fail, again.
So, for the record you don't want any guns banned? That is a yes or no question.
So, for the record, you can't show that I said I want them banned. Why am I not surprised?
Knew you couldn't show that I am trying to ban them. What a liar.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You will of course show where I ever said that I want them banned.
For some reason, I'll not be surprised when you fail, again.
So, for the record you don't want any guns banned? That is a yes or no question.
So, for the record, you can't show that I said I want them banned. Why am I not surprised?
Knew you couldn't show that I am trying to ban them. What a liar.
So then please explain to me what you have been trying to accomplish the last few weeks by posting every anti-gun thing you could find?
And again, do you want to ban any guns? You call me a liar but you are unable to answer this question?
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You will of course show where I ever said that I want them banned.
For some reason, I'll not be surprised when you fail, again.
So, for the record you don't want any guns banned? That is a yes or no question.
So, for the record, you can't show that I said I want them banned. Why am I not surprised?
Knew you couldn't show that I am trying to ban them. What a liar.
So then please explain to me what you have been trying to accomplish the last few weeks by posting every anti-gun thing you could find?
And again, do you want to ban any guns? You call me a liar but you are unable to answer this question?
It is by a person's actions that you find out about them-not necessarily by what they say. The actions speak louder than words.
If a person is anti-gun I have more respect for them if they just say they are anti-gun. I disagree with their position but I respect them for saying what they believe and I support their right to be anti-gun if they want to.
It is a different story if somebody is trying to present themselves as being pro-gun but their every action indicates they are anti-gun.
If a person is anti-gun I have more respect for them if they just say they are anti-gun. I disagree with their position but I respect them for saying what they believe and I support their right to be anti-gun if they want to.
It is a different story if somebody is trying to present themselves as being pro-gun but their every action indicates they are anti-gun.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
It is by a person's actions that you find out about them-not necessarily by what they say. The actions speak louder than words.
And the fact that they just make stuff up (Like claiming I'm actively trying to get those "assualt waepons" banned.), that they can't prove, speaks volumes for their integrity and honesty.
That's how you find out about people.
It is by a person's actions that you find out about them-not necessarily by what they say. The actions speak louder than words.
And the fact that they just make stuff up (Like claiming I'm actively trying to get those "assualt waepons" banned.), that they can't prove, speaks volumes for their integrity and honesty.
That's how you find out about people.
It's difficult for some people to grasp the concept "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open their mouth and prove it". In this case, the fools type their proof!
Last edited:
@ CourierDriver - I apologize....I'm not used to this new fangled internet thing and just realized my last post appears to have been directed at you. That was certainly NOT my intent...it was intended for the anti-gun, big mouth losers that are polluting your thread.
Again, my apologies if you thought I directed that at you.....NOW I understand the REPLY function. My bad!!
Again, my apologies if you thought I directed that at you.....NOW I understand the REPLY function. My bad!!
Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
It's difficult for some people to grasp the concept "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open their mouth and prove it". In this case, the fools type their proof!
Incredibly accurate and concise!!
It's difficult for some people to grasp the concept "it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open their mouth and prove it". In this case, the fools type their proof!
Incredibly accurate and concise!!
Back in the mid-60's I swore an oath (several times) to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Even though I was pretty young, I took that oath very, very seriously. I still do. However, I never dreamed that domestic enemies would become so numerous, either because of fear, ignorance, or stupidity or some other factors. Unlike many of our countrymen I've read that document from the very first word to the very last word at least a dozen and a half times. Over the years, I believe I have seen that document subverted and misinterpreted by the courts, and others, several times.
As an American, one should not get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution one intends to support and defend. Nor, should an American tolerate or allow anyone to reinterpret what the constitution's intent "really" means in this 21st century without a "fight." The constitution means today, exactly what it meant when it was ratified by the original 13 colonies. Either that, or like George Orwell's "Animal Farm" or "1984" it means whatever someone else says that it means! If that is to be the case, then so many of us have/had been tricked into taking a meaningless and worthless oath!
Either the 2nd amendment means that we the people have the right to keep and bear arms as it meant for the first 200 years of our republic, or it never meant that at all--despite what the founding fathers believed and intended in there writing of that amendment, their personal letters/correspondence with each other, and in the set of Federalist Papers they published. Arguments over what is meant by "the militia" are meaningless, since the "right of the people to keep and bear arms..." trumps any other interpretation.
Now having said all that...I don't believe that "we the people" were ever intended to "keep and bear arms" like the artillery of 1700's or the armed vessels of that day. I don't think it is unreasonable to accept that the amendment did not intend to include weapons (i.e., cannons) that were part of the organized militia or the then infant Army of the United States. It follows further that the 2nd Amendment never did intend military grade weapons, i.e., AK-47's, M-15's, M-16's, 60mm/81mm mortors, howitzer, tanks with operational heavy weapons, etc. to be in the hands of "the people."
If we honestly and fairly think through the 2nd Amendment issues, it becomes clear that "we the people" were never intended by the founders to own and operate our own arsenals.
As an American, one should not get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution one intends to support and defend. Nor, should an American tolerate or allow anyone to reinterpret what the constitution's intent "really" means in this 21st century without a "fight." The constitution means today, exactly what it meant when it was ratified by the original 13 colonies. Either that, or like George Orwell's "Animal Farm" or "1984" it means whatever someone else says that it means! If that is to be the case, then so many of us have/had been tricked into taking a meaningless and worthless oath!
Either the 2nd amendment means that we the people have the right to keep and bear arms as it meant for the first 200 years of our republic, or it never meant that at all--despite what the founding fathers believed and intended in there writing of that amendment, their personal letters/correspondence with each other, and in the set of Federalist Papers they published. Arguments over what is meant by "the militia" are meaningless, since the "right of the people to keep and bear arms..." trumps any other interpretation.
Now having said all that...I don't believe that "we the people" were ever intended to "keep and bear arms" like the artillery of 1700's or the armed vessels of that day. I don't think it is unreasonable to accept that the amendment did not intend to include weapons (i.e., cannons) that were part of the organized militia or the then infant Army of the United States. It follows further that the 2nd Amendment never did intend military grade weapons, i.e., AK-47's, M-15's, M-16's, 60mm/81mm mortors, howitzer, tanks with operational heavy weapons, etc. to be in the hands of "the people."
If we honestly and fairly think through the 2nd Amendment issues, it becomes clear that "we the people" were never intended by the founders to own and operate our own arsenals.
Makes the 1st look pretty weak then too, as the number of people that you can influence on a street corner, the number of people that you can mail is pretty small compared to the number of people reading your post...it was never foreseen (not intended) that you could press a button, and have the entire world (bar China) see your post.
How far thinking were your founding fathers, and at what point from regular, military weapons were they prepared to deny the people arms ?
They surely didn't expect Xerox mchines
How far thinking were your founding fathers, and at what point from regular, military weapons were they prepared to deny the people arms ?
They surely didn't expect Xerox mchines
Back then, the arms in the hands of civilians (Pennsylvania rifle) were better than those of military issue (Brown Bess musket). The founders clearly saw that during the war that ended only a few years prior to writing the Constitution, so your point on comparitive arms capability is specious.
I see no reason that I, as a law-abiding citizen (not a felon or criminal or crazy) should not have a lightweight rifle that I can use for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. The National Firearms Act of 1934 means that my rifle can only fire one shot with each trigger pull. I am not even asking for full auto, just an auto loader.
Were I older, with weaker hands, a lightweight, low recoil rifle with adjustable stock is much easier for me to handle than the higher recoil of a pistol or shotgun. The versatility of that rifle is hard to match, and the reasons I just outlined for my possession are both legitimate and enumerated in the Constitution.
I see no reason that I, as a law-abiding citizen (not a felon or criminal or crazy) should not have a lightweight rifle that I can use for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. The National Firearms Act of 1934 means that my rifle can only fire one shot with each trigger pull. I am not even asking for full auto, just an auto loader.
Were I older, with weaker hands, a lightweight, low recoil rifle with adjustable stock is much easier for me to handle than the higher recoil of a pistol or shotgun. The versatility of that rifle is hard to match, and the reasons I just outlined for my possession are both legitimate and enumerated in the Constitution.
- Status
