Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 69
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,772
    vCash
    1500
    Anyway, it seems like this has turned out pretty much like every other D Roses thread. Posts something absurd, not long after posting it questions why people aren't brave enough to reply to him, and after it's shredded he completely vanishes.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Add Content

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,472
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderfaninTX View Post
    I have to admit I did bait you into posting the supreme court argument, because so many ignorant people go there.

    If you cannot admit you were wrong after I post this then there is no reason for anyone to ever to respond to your post.

    I said do a google search and I meant it.

    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government

    Please do your research before posting, the definition did not change 218 years after it was written but hey it's been 2 years since the last time it was redefined by the supreme court. They may change their minds, lol

    What else needs to be provided for you or natepro to admit you're wrong along with everyone else who uses that lame *** well regulated militia argument. Like I posted earlier this issue is complex and the average person cannot begin to think on a level on how to solve it.

    It is funny though that people post so much misinformation and using a device that can provide them with answers if they were not so lazy to do some research.

    So you tell me did the court "GET IT RIGHT" or were they "DAMN, ACTIVIST JUDGES"?
    Please never respond to my posts again. If you don't think in 50 years a court could rule this differently you don't understand the court's history. Precedent only means so much. Because a court ruled so... does not mean that another court wont rule differently. Really you are trotting out a couple of 5-4 decisions as something that won't change... Something that if taken up 6 years earlier would likely have been ruled 5-4 in the OTHER direction. (I miss Sandra Day O'Coner). So like I said you can chose to never respond to my posts again with this self-righteous drivel.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    2,486
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Please never respond to my posts again. If you don't think in 50 years a court could rule this differently you don't understand the court's history. Precedent only means so much. Because a court ruled so... does not mean that another court wont rule differently. Really you are trotting out a couple of 5-4 decisions as something that won't change... Something that if taken up 6 years earlier would likely have been ruled 5-4 in the OTHER direction. (I miss Sandra Day O'Coner). So like I said you can chose to never respond to my posts again with this self-righteous drivel.
    So In your mind any decision that was 5 to 4 is some how less than another, you use some weird logic. The word IF, I love it. It allows to make up any scenario we want. The problem is you also included a scenario in the past that never happened as an argument. That is a horrible example, then talk about 50 years in the future, lol well what if in a 100 years they over turn your so called judgement in 50 years lol. See how assanine that argument is? They also did not change the definition 218 years after its writing so we should ignore that and put our money down on the 270 year mark. Am I getting this right?

    You really provided no facts in your 2 paragraphs. You provided some type of guess at the future and then said if we changed the past it would have changed ( well no ****) your power of hindsight is unmatched. That is a childish argument at best.

    You really should take some debate courses, it would help you out.

    I will now stick to debating stephkyle and dbronco's.

    Using a tablet to,type sucks by the way

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,472
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderfaninTX View Post
    So In your mind any decision that was 5 to 4 is some how less than another, you use some weird logic. The word IF, I love it. It allows to make up any scenario we want. The problem is you also included a scenario in the past that never happened as an argument. That is a horrible example, then talk about 50 years in the future, lol well what if in a 100 years they over turn your so called judgement in 50 years lol. See how assanine that argument is? They also did not change the definition 218 years after its writing so we should ignore that and put our money down on the 270 year mark. Am I getting this right?

    You really provided no facts in your 2 paragraphs. You provided some type of guess at the future and then said if we changed the past it would have changed ( well no ****) your power of hindsight is unmatched. That is a childish argument at best.

    You really should take some debate courses, it would help you out.

    I will now stick to debating stephkyle and dbronco's.

    Using a tablet to,type sucks by the way
    I'm not debating you... There is no need to debate you. I'm discussing an issue with someone who believes differently than me and apparently is harboring a delusion that this kind of conversation ends with winners or losers or anyone changing their mind. Good luck with that.

    5-4 decisions are different because they are fairly rare (agreement on the court is far more regular than you would guess , we've had a couple threads about that) and it indicates that it is far from settled law. But whatever... you should go talk to someone who is on your level. I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    405
    vCash
    1500
    I don't need a Russian article to tell me not give up my guns. Come try to take my guns.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ricky recon View Post
    I don't need a Russian article to tell me not give up my guns. Come try to take my guns.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,472
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ricky recon View Post
    I don't need a Russian article to tell me not give up my guns. Come try to take my guns.
    So if you had say an AK-47 and a bill was past where AK-47s were made illegal. If the police showed up at your door for your AK-47 you would what Shoot them? If your answer is yes than that is a good reason to ban them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    11,499
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ricky recon View Post
    I don't need a Russian article to tell me not give up my guns. Come try to take my guns.
    murica

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    405
    vCash
    1500
    1) It is illegal to import/export an AK47

    2) To own one I'd have to find one here that was registered before 1986 or whatever year they passed it.

    3) To own one I need a special license.

    4) I don't own that piece of ****.

    Be realistic in the future.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    11,499
    vCash
    1500
    what on earth are you talking about chip commando

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,472
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ricky recon View Post
    1) It is illegal to import/export an AK47

    2) To own one I'd have to find one here that was registered before 1986 or whatever year they passed it.

    3) To own one I need a special license.

    4) I don't own that piece of ****.

    Be realistic in the future.
    You didn't answer my question. Getting hung up on a particular weapon is besides the point.

    You posted this:

    Quote Originally Posted by ricky recon View Post
    I don't need a Russian article to tell me not give up my guns. Come try to take my guns.

    I asked if you would shoot police officers who were tasked with rounding up assault rifles (not something that was part of the assault weapons ban BTW) if you would shoot them with your assault rifles... which I think is the point of your statement. And again if that is how you feel then that is a reason for more gun control in itself. That is essentially saying that you value guns over human life, and would refuse to follow the law of the land... ya know cause you know better.

    Now if you're "come try and get my guns" means I will peacefully hand over my assault rifles and hire myself a big fancy lawyer and sue all the way to the supreme court that would be a great and acceptable idea. This is the point of the legal system and how we generally solve conflicts inside our country. There's a lot less death with that method.
    Last edited by flips333; 01-14-2013 at 12:01 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,098
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    And the fact that "militia" and "people" are not the same two groups.
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    It's best to ignore the parts of the constitution one doesn't agree with.
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    You can do a simple google search and find out that something that was written 220 years ago means exactly what you want it to mean.
    Let's just act like it's "guys" who are agreeing and not the founding fathers themselves who are saying it.

    I mean when an author comes out and tells you what his book is about, do you question or disagree with him? No, you don't.

    So why do you question what they meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment despite them explaining in as clear as possible terms what they meant?

    Look, If you want to say the 2nd Amendment is outdated fine, make the argument, but don't try changing history by insinuating the 2nd Amendment meant something other than what the guys who wrote it tell you it meant.

    That's intellectually dishonest and you know it.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,472
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Let's just act like it's "guys" who are agreeing and not the founding fathers themselves who are saying it.

    I mean when an author comes out and tells you what his book is about, do you question or disagree with him? No, you don't.

    So why do you question what they meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment despite them explaining in as clear as possible terms what they meant?

    Look, If you want to say the 2nd Amendment is outdated fine, make the argument, but don't try changing history by insinuating the 2nd Amendment meant something other than what the guys who wrote it tell you it meant.

    That's intellectually dishonest and you know it.
    It's all completely clear what everything in the constitution means. Those brilliant founding fathers even had time machines to see how their words would be interpreted with new inventions like nuclear power, eugenics and infrared cameras. We don't even really need 9 justices on the Supreme Court because you know, they all completely agree about what the constitution means and how it should be applied.

    I am not being intellectually dishonest. Do you know what is...? Acting like the founding fathers weren't just a bunch of guys. Well-educated rich guys who in many ways were just looking out for themselves.


    "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."

    That's all it says. NOTHING MORE. So tell me how the use of well regulated militia is clear? Do the citizens need to be in a well regulated millita.... Is the regulation of such arms an infringement on the right to have arms. Which arms? Cause my friend at the time arms were muskets. At the time could I outfit my ranch house with cannons? Now does stopping someone from having a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round clip infringing upon the right to keep and bear arm when that person could have a hand gun, a shot gun and a hunting rifle? If you think that one sentence clearly answers all these questions then you have magic eyes and can read words that I can't see. I suggest you ride your unicorn to Washington DC and straighten out all them fools who are arguing about this.
    Last edited by flips333; 01-14-2013 at 01:59 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    405
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    You didn't answer my question. Getting hung up on a particular weapon is besides the point.

    You posted this:




    I asked if you would shoot police officers who were tasked with rounding up assault rifles (not something that was part of the assault weapons ban BTW) if you would shoot them with your assault rifles... which I think is the point of your statement. And again if that is how you feel then that is a reason for more gun control in itself. That is essentially saying that you value guns over human life, and would refuse to follow the law of the land... ya know cause you know better.

    Now if you're "come try and get my guns" means I will peacefully hand over my assault rifles and hire myself a big fancy lawyer and sue all the way to the supreme court that would be a great and acceptable idea. This is the point of the legal system and how we generally solve conflicts inside our country. There's a lot less death with that method.
    So either I'm sueing him or killing the local law enforcement that is magically at my door to take my unregistered M16.

    And somehow guns should be banned because there would be a resistive movement if they tried to ban guns, even though that was a prime reason the second amendment was established.

    You don't make very much sense now do you.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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