I'll have a look when I'm not driving. I actually think I have much more in common with my fellow gun owners here than most people think.
As for Merlot, I'm surprised a Pats fan isn't more into Ripple Blanc : )
New NY gun law
- Thread starter DEKA3
- Start date
As for Merlot, I'm surprised a Pats fan isn't more into Ripple Blanc : )
theizzardking
New member
please remove head from the neither regions....what are we talking about here? is anyone asking for the right to own nukes or even fully automatic actual assault rifles for that matter? stay on topic instead of extrapolating until you're in the realm of ad absurdum and possibly ad nauseum ....we are talking about the past AWB "BAN" (not control) and current talks of AWB's which includes all semi-automatics....just in case if you didn't pick that up over multiple threads and a few hundred pages of posts.....
but again you;re still wrong on teh whole basis of the constitution.... if you really care and want to know do some research on john loke influence on thomas Jefferson and the state of the world at the time, you have to realize also that was the greatest time in human history as far as over throwing tyrannical governments , those people knew what they were talking about in regards to how governments and tyrant rule and come into power...you should heed their advice....
an article written on the grade school level
John Locke's Influence on the American Declaration of Independence - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
before you decide to voice your "opinion" again i urge you to read lokes works,the jefferson papers and then the constitution , i'm willing to bet that first amendments on the constitution weren't "open for interpretation" in fact in his papers jefferson goes so far as to basically say so as he didn't want the words to be perverted by asshats that never like the constitution in the first place, again history lesson, the war for our Independence was actually a civil war and not everyone left after the war was over.....so basically you can use Latin and legal terminology all you want but with out having a foundation to apply that to your completely useless.....:usa:
mikebontoft
New member
I know why we can't come to a conclusion.... there's always so much useless bickering and Epeen displaying. lol
JohnnyT
New member
Makes total sense to me. We'll never agree so lets not try.
theizzardking
New member
logic>sense....but ok whatever you say....i was seriously trying to understand....
Last edited:
theizzardking
New member
hwell:
mikebontoft
New member
Just the nature of it unfortunately.
Something funny I thought I'd point out to you guys... According to the Govt. I own an assault weapon.
Here's what I bought it as, a Ruger 10/22. Super popular 22lr plinking gun. essentially a BB gun. Unfortunately, a stock photo... but just like mine when I bought it minus the wear.
Now here it is. Assault weapon. Scary right?
Something funny I thought I'd point out to you guys... According to the Govt. I own an assault weapon.
Here's what I bought it as, a Ruger 10/22. Super popular 22lr plinking gun. essentially a BB gun. Unfortunately, a stock photo... but just like mine when I bought it minus the wear.
Now here it is. Assault weapon. Scary right?
EXACTLY. This is a free country, and no one should have to justify his 'need' for buying a consumer product.
Here's a mind-boggler for you libs: should a woman have to justify her 'need' before having an abortion?
4runnerBrett
New member
Im all down for stricter enforcing and what not. Im definetly all up for banning full auto weapons because no one should need a full auto weapon.
theizzardking
New member
ummmm full auto's have been banned...since like 1938 or something like that....i too am 10000% behind better enforcement, some reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and closing loop holes.......
i will vehemently and bitterly fight against the banning of "black guns" semi-auto's or basically anything that is legal to buy and own today...i'm undecided on magazine count as it really doesn't make a difference and doesn't stop me from choosing how to protect my family and land.....and have fun....
mikebontoft
New member
No offense to you man, but why does everyone use that excuse?
The problem isn't with legal gun owners. I'm down with more thorough background checks I suppose, but do you realize how hard it is to actually be able to own a full automatic weapon? It's not like in the movies and tv where every bad guy has an automatic weapon.
Titanpat57
Senior Member
At a rate of 3200 deaths or so a day..no one seems too unsettled about destroying these children's lives..do they? No one is busting down the doors of the Dr's committing these murders are they?? They just use different "tools"..that is all. The sicko in CT used a weapon....and that some how, some way, makes us all reprehensibly responsible.
But..
They're comin' for me (a law abiding citizen?)..right?
Not trying to split hairs..but is life, life?...are the lives of the children killed in CT anymore (divided by a mere 5-6 years), or any less significantly important than the lives that flushed into the sewers daily?
It's all a big picture my Brothers..sorry..we have to have some defining lines, before we can establish the goal lines.
The discussions have ranged from any limitations whatsoever to specific limitations such as the AWB, which I have expressed an unwillingness to support by the way.
I do thank you for taking the time to offer me a history lesson, and one targeted at my grade level no less. You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that what little reading I do tends to be from books with lots of pitchers. Lots and lots of pretty pitchers. Ironically, most of my porn tends to be scratch-n-sniff. Odd world.
No I never heard of this Locke guy. I was fascinated to learn that the "e" at the end of his name is silent. Apparently, you don't say lok-ē. Seems like a waste of a letter, but there you have it. Are you saying we should look to foreign law and ideas to understand American law? Seems like a leftist, bed-wetting, liberal,'Merica hating idea, but I will leave you to it nonetheless. Me, I'll stick to 'Merican books.
Also, thanks for learning-me-up on judicial review and how the precedent of Marbury vs. Madison was a pivotal moment in expanding the role of the Supreme Court. Were it not for your mentioning it; however obtusely, I'd have never heard of it. Here you were able to teach me about Jefferson multiple times; I had previously thought he was just a dry cleaner owner living in a de-luxe apartment in the sky. Anyway, yes - it was a profound decision; no - not everyone likes or agrees with it.
Of course, you mention Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence which is not a governing document. I'm sure you know that he was in Paris (which I learned is in France) at the time of the writing of the Constitution (that would be a governing document), and James Madison is largely thought of as the chief (but certainly not sole) author. Of course Jefferson influenced it, mostly through French letters. Turns out some George Mason guy figures into the whole Bill of Rights thingy (a version of which the English penned before we did). Anyway, in a strange coincident, both these guys appear to have been named after Universities.
There apparently was much debate and disagreement about a lot of the basics regarding the very nature of our democracy and apparently there existed a Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian divide that rivaled the whole East Coast versus West Coast rap thing (think of Jefferson as Tupac and Notorious B.I.G. as being Hamilton)...wait...I'll save my breath as we can stop a Lock (I'm gonna spell it like I say it), and there is this Publius guy who kept posting on another forum back in the day that we would have to discuss. Dang it gets complicated.
Sorry for going Latin on you, but even at my basic level I reasoned that "absurd" and "absurdum" were close enough that it was pretty unambiguous. It's not like I busted out a "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing proves itself), a "Veni, vidi, vici" (I came, I saw, I conquered), a "Veni, Vidi, Vegi" (I came, I saw, I had a salad), a "Veni, Vidi, Velcro" (I came, I saw, I stuck around), or a "Veni, Vidi, Vinny" (I came, I saw, I got an offer I couldn't refuse). I used words that I reckoned everyone would get. I'll try not to come off as pedantic in the future (that means all big word usin').
Again, thanks for the note and please use small words if you reply. Four letter words would be right up my alley.
Dude, how have you never heard of John Locke? His theories are considered the foundation for the entire concept of the Constitution. His theories were called 'classical liberalism', but today are more in line with modern libertarianism. He was a favorite of Madison and Jefferson, etc. There is no 'leftist, bed-wetting, liberal, 'Merica hating ideas' in Locke's writings. It is pure freedom.
mikebontoft
New member
Teachar, I have to pee... it's an emergency!
Heh...you got me there :doh:
Things have been a little too serious around here lately.
Don't worry. Most would agree I do stupid well.
theizzardking
New member
look, the intellectual bravado doesn't work well for you and neither does trying to be street or whatever the heck that was....honestly, i'm giving you crap for double talking, saying alot with no real point , and just wandering in general... it's not the big words, it's because you come off as really pretentious while not knowing what your on about.....
those principles lead to the french revolution,American revolution,Spanish revolution among many others...basically the free world as we know it, so ya, i'll take that....wtf was Jefferson doing in France anyways? btw, i'm a dual national of here and the uk, i do believe we can learn a few things from them, but at the end of the day i live here for a reason.......
the constitution isn't JUST a governing document it is also social contract between the people and the government , with that in mind in regards to Marbury vs. Madison , they were merely figuring out basically code of conduct, it had no baring on liberties of the public or the individual , in effect it was just another step in keep the government in check, yes it was expanding the powers of the supreme court but please explain to me how that effects the spirit and concept held when drafting the constitution...
you mention Madison...again head in the wrong place...
you mention mason, but don't know his stance on the topic and liberty in general...
i can keep going but it all boils down to your full of it, no matter what i say, or please tell me how what you posted means anything in the context of what we're talking about here? you have never lived in an oppressive society from what i can tell , so you have no foundation to try to understand what i'm talking about , or maybe just an unwillingness to hear it?.....either way you can have a good conversation with out going all sesquipedalian and come off sounding pretentious, at one point your using latin just for the sake of it, just so i would know that you know a little somthing....what a joke.....i'm done....
Last edited:
Oh, I know the quotes of Mason well. He was a powerful figure, particularly in opposition to many federalist ideals and this is something I have always found compelling about him. You're making a big leap to say that because I recognize like the Supreme Court's most Constitutionally conservative justice that there is some plausible limitation to what "arms" are protected, that I somehow don't value freedom or the spirt and intent of the bill of rights the way you do. It seems ill founded.
Arguing the right points in the wrong context or the wrong points altogether won't help preserve anyone's rights. It will leave us ironically unarmed when the opposition and the undecided they can manipulate see that the emperor has no clothes. Maybe it doesn't matter; maybe there isn't enough support for the passage of more gun control born out of fear, which is the worst way to make policy (we need only look at the Patriot Act to see what laws written in a panic give us). It seems, however, that a State like New York is particularly ripe to more gun laws, and one should have a pretty good command of the subject matter and not lean on a house of cards (those cards including an inaccurate or incomplete understand of the Constitution) to seriously mount a defense.
And again, absurdum is absurdly close to absurd, much like making a case out of its use.
Similar threads
- Locked
