Jump to content

Let's See How Many Liberals Can Dispute Any Of This.


3rdnlng

Recommended Posts

That's not what he said. He dodged the question.

he certainly feels the possibility is up for discussion. he considers it a possibility.

 

CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i can be trusted with a 12 gauge shotgun and would gladly submit to a screening process before taking possession. i wouldn't trust myself with an automatic weapon designed for killing humans nor would i desire one. and i wouldn't want anyone to have access to any gun without a thorough background check.

.

Why wouldn't you trust yourself with a handgun? And they are designed for killing people. I think you're calling the wrong people paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

he certainly feels the possibility is up for discussion. he considers it a possibility.

 

CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

 

then there's this

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.
Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Because...why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't you trust yourself with a handgun? And they are designed for killing people. I think you're calling the wrong people paranoid.

the first time i went hunting i was pretty certain that i wouldn't kill anything. just not my scene. and then the instincts kicked in…the dogs found a bird..and i shot and killed without hesitation. speaking with many others about this, i've yet to find someone that found this unusual.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first time i went hunting i was pretty certain that i wouldn't kill anything. just not my scene. and then the instincts kicked in…the dogs found a bird..and i shot and killed without hesitate. speaking with many others about this, i've yet to find someone that found this unusual.

So you fear you may have the same instincts toward people-if you have a certain type of gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you fear you may have the same instincts toward people-if you have a certain type of gun?

i fear that we aren't as evolved as some think from animals. there's ample evidence to support that contention. how do you expect things would go if monkeys were given automatic weapons to play with? especially if they disliked or distrusted their handlers/rule makers...

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

then there's this

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceM-16 rifles and the likemay be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Because...why

I don't interpret that to mean civilians should be allowed to own rocket launchers. I take it to mean that you don't stop having the right to own a gun just because the prefatory clause no longer applies as it did when it was written.

 

You've still never explained how any of this changes the nature of your generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first time i went hunting i was pretty certain that i wouldn't kill anything. just not my scene. and then the instincts kicked inthe dogs found a bird..and i shot and killed without hesitation. speaking with many others about this, i've yet to find someone that found this unusual.

You're out hunting and you killed something and you're looking for someone to find that unusual? If someone breaks into your home i would hope the same instinct kicks in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be difficult to swing that 34" barreled trap gun around in close quarters that so fired up his blood lust shooting quail.

This explains a lot of the liberal/leftist mindset. They are against things, e.g., money, guns, and power in the hands of individuals because they imagine that if they had those things they would be terrible abusers of them to the detriment of other people. They think people like Mitt Romney don't care for "the little people" because they wouldn't if they had his money. In birdbrain's case he can't fathom owning a gun and not being able to control his urge to shoot the faces off of stupid people, which frankly is in his view practically everyone in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'm more evolved than most. I got my first "automatic" 40 years ago and never shot anyone. Or thought of it. It would be interesting to see a "I will tell you what you do or do not need" type such as yourself in a LA riots situation where the cops left.

and that's just the what if you are ready and possibly even eager for. it just hasn't happened yet.

This explains a lot of the liberal/leftist mindset. They are against things, e.g., money, guns, and power in the hands of individuals because they imagine that if they had those things they would be terrible abusers of them to the detriment of other people. They think people like Mitt Romney don't care for "the little people" because they wouldn't if they had his money. In birdbrain's case he can't fathom owning a gun and not being able to control his urge to shoot the faces off of stupid people, which frankly is in his view practically everyone in the world.

see above. this is what i'm afraid of. it's not like we haven't seen bloody armed revolt with negative outcomes on a global level recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and that's just the what if you are ready and possibly even eager for. it just hasn't happened yet.

 

 

Yes that's why we own guns. To take part in the rioting in the streets and to be one step ahead of the people with torches and pitchforks. :rolleyes:

 

To zee lumber yard!!! (That one's for your LA ;) )

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

coyotes sounded thick and close last night. seems a good place to ask: can i use the 3 inch 15 pellet lead 00 load described here with a remington 870 at 50 yards? http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/rifles/ammunition/2012/06/why-shotguns-are-better-rifles-coyote-hunting. i don't have a super mag as stated in the article.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

coyotes sounded thick and close last night. seems a good place to ask: can i use the 3 inch 15 pellet lead 00 load described here with a remington 870 at 50 yards? http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/rifles/ammunition/2012/06/why-shotguns-are-better-rifles-coyote-hunting. i don't have a super mag as stated in the article.

 

You call them coyotes? Here in Oakland we call them flatlanders. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um, no. these were coyotes. i'm pretty certain my cattle farming neighbors were out hunting them as a group last night and calling them. i just want to be fairly certain that i can kill one should it wander near my house.

 

So you want to kill something that if you throw a rock at it will most likely run away but confronted with an animal that can actually kill you, you don't trust yourself to kill? Did I get that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...