Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[top gun]

HORSECRAP! The only Mod I've seen say anything to anyone is Bunz, and the only ones he seems to be bothered by is conservatives, or anyone who throws your libtard BS back in your faces. You libtards LIE, OBFUSCATE, and ATTACK any and every conservative on the board on a DAILY basis, but nothing is ever said to any of you, which PROVES that Bunz is TOTALLY PARTISAN, and like I told him in the PM after he gave me the warning, he's not qualified to be a Mod in a FAT FARM, much less a political forum.

Keep it up... maybe they'll ban you. I know if I was a Mod I wouldn't take your crap for one second.

Originally Posted by Bob the Builder
Your problem is that you haven't read enough of the pertinent documents to be able to "interpret" them, because if you had you'd understand that no "interpretation" is necessary! The FF's knew exactly what they wanted to say, which is why they chose and used the words that they did, so that ANY AVERAGE CITIZEN walking down the street would know EXACTLY what it meant without having to have anyone "interpret" it for them, or explain what it meant!

So you're saying when the Founding Fathers said "all men" they meant only "all men". That's exactly what they said.

That proves you know nothing whatsoever about period speech.

 

[Bob the Builder]

But you are not a police officer of any kind. You're a poser. And your own rambling in your posts makes it far too easy to point out.

You were raving mad because you couldn't carry a gun into the courthouse.

Yet police officers ARE allowed to carry their sidearms into a courthouse.

Bullcrap, I carry my weapon every time I go to the courthouse! I was talking about the average citizen, and you damned well know it. Now you're just trying to play some silly little game because I busted your butt.

Cry like a little girl why don't you? WHAAAAAAA!

You said in every courtroom you've ever been in there's been at least 3 bailiffs with guns.

Yet there's is only 1 bailiff armed or unarmed assigned to each judge and each courtroom.

Maybe in your PODUNK town, but here we have 3, one at the main doors, one at the attorney's door, and one in the front of the courtroom with the Judge. On the rare occasions when we have a "high profile" case, they may assign as many as 6 to the courtroom to make sure that there's no trouble.

Don't bother giving us some song and dance now... you're busted straight out as a poser. You obviously don't think highly enough of your "builder" life to just stick to who you really are.

And personally I don't care.

The only one who's been busted is you. You don't know DICK about the D.O.I., you don't know DICK about the Constitution, and you sure as Hell don't know Dick about police work.

Oh, and since I know that your Libtard buddy ASPCA won't say anything to you about it (since you're a libtard) it's POSEUR, not "poser".

 

[Bob the Builder]

Keep it up... maybe they'll ban you. I know if I was a Mod I wouldn't take your crap for one second.

I know you'd ban me, but only because I show you to be as ignorant as everyone already knows you to be. You don't know anything, about anything, and you prove it every time you post.

 

[PLC1]

That's something that really bothers me about Libtard States like California. They seem to think that it's OK to infringe on peoples Constitutional rights if they don't agree with them, but let's look at the flaws in that position.

What if the old Confederate states decided that they didn't like the 13th Amendment, and decided on their own that it was OK to own slaves? How much hew and cry would go up over that, and how long do you think it would last? What if Utah decided that they didn't like the First Amendment prohibition against "state religion", and made Mormon the official State religion, and if you weren't Mormon you had to leave or be imprisoned? What if some states decided that they didn't like the 15th Amendment, and decided to ignore it too? What do you think would happen if Vermont decided that they didn't want to have to bother with search warrants any more because they were too much trouble?

What makes anyone think that there are "exceptions" to the very clear verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, but not to any of the other Amendments, or for that matter, in the body of the Constitution itself? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are there for a reason, and they may not be infringed upon, nor abrogated simply because someone decides that they don't like it, because once THAT door is opened, it's almost impossible to close it again, as we're plainly seeing today. Franklin has been proven correct, the sheeple have surrendered their Liberty for a bit of security, and now they have NEITHER.

And yet, you're the one who posted that fully automatic weapons are legal in California. That doesn't sound like a "libtard" state ignoring the second Amendment to me.

I'm still not convinced that I can go down to the local sporting goods store, purchase a fully automatic rifle, and carry it around in my car, though, not here on the left coast. I'm not even sure that I can keep it in my house, but I could be wrong. I'm really not up on what gun laws are.

Of course, not being a convicted felon, being of sound mind and etc, I should be able to purchase such a weapon if I so desired. It says so in the Constitution.

But, then, it also says I can have SAMs and RPGs if I want.

And, the reality is that my weapons consist of a single shot .22 I've had since I was a kid, and a revolver that hasn't been fired in years, but that's my choice. I'd rather spend my money on other things.

 

[top gun]

I know you'd ban me, but only because I show you to be as ignorant as everyone already knows you to be. You don't know anything, about anything, and you prove it every time you post.

I probably would ban you... but because you break the rules about direct personal insults, even insult the Moderators themselves and refuse to act with any sense of decorum whatsoever.

And it's my guess if you keep it up you will be gone for awhile. It's kinda up to you. Do what you want. If you disappear I'll know what happened.

 

[Bob the Builder]

So you're saying when the Founding Fathers said "all men" they meant only "all men". That's exactly what they said.

That proves you know nothing whatsoever about period speech.

This from the moonbat who doesn't know the difference between the DOI and the Constitution?!?!?!?! That's FUNNY!

Time to take tg to school....again. Jefferson 'borrowed' the phrase in question from an essay in the Virginia Gazette from 1774, and it had been based on the philosophy espoused in Hobbes's "Leviathan" from 1651 during the English Civil War. The concept of the equality of mankind was nothing new, and was specifically used to express the fact that many of the Rights specifically enumerated in the English Bill of Rights had been denied to the American Colonists, which is why the following sentence Jefferson notes that governments are " instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that you're trying to twist this into some form of sexist argument only goes to prove the equivocational tendency of liberals. You constantly look for something "wrong" with the Constitution in order to foist your patently absurd agenda on the country because you KNOW that if you actually did it the correct way, by amending the constitution, it would NEVER happen, therefore you're left with no other choice but to LIE, and you don't even do it well.

 

[Bob the Builder]

And yet, you're the one who posted that fully automatic weapons are legal in California. That doesn't sound like a "libtard" state ignoring the second Amendment to me.

Well PLC1, given that the 2nd Amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", and given that in the state of Californication the PERMIT process through which someone must jump most certainly does infringe on that Right makes their laws unconstitutional on their face, and since the only group that I'm aware of that intentionally and consistently institutes laws that violate the constitution are libtards, well.....there it is. If something is a Right, you don't need to ask permission to exercise that Right, and if you do have to ask permission, then it's not a Right, but a privilege, and the last time I checked, James Madison wrote the "Bill of RIGHTS", not the "Bill of Privileges".

I'm still not convinced that I can go down to the local sporting goods store, purchase a fully automatic rifle, and carry it around in my car, though, not here on the left coast. I'm not even sure that I can keep it in my house, but I could be wrong. I'm really not up on what gun laws are.

As I just said, the fact that you can't is by definition an INFRINGEMENT on your Right to "keep and bear arms".

Of course, not being a convicted felon, being of sound mind and etc, I should be able to purchase such a weapon if I so desired. It says so in the Constitution.

Correct.

But, then, it also says I can have SAMs and RPGs if I want.

Correct.

And, the reality is that my weapons consist of a single shot .22 I've had since I was a kid, and a revolver that hasn't been fired in years, but that's my choice. I'd rather spend my money on other things.

It is your choice, but my question for you is this; Is your "choice" really based on your choice, or is it based on a culture that you've been inculcated in where the State decides when, where, and what kind of weapons you may or may not "keep and bear" without being harassed, detained, and possibly arrested by the local and state Gestapo?

 

[top gun]

This from the moonbat who doesn't know the difference between the DOI and the Constitution?!?!?!?! That's FUNNY!

Time to take tg to school....again. Jefferson 'borrowed' the phrase in question from an essay in the Virginia Gazette from 1774, and it had been based on the philosophy espoused in Hobbes's "Leviathan" from 1651 during the English Civil War. The concept of the equality of mankind was nothing new, and was specifically used to express the fact that many of the Rights specifically enumerated in the English Bill of Rights had been denied to the American Colonists, which is why the following sentence Jefferson notes that governments are " instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that you're trying to twist this into some form of sexist argument only goes to prove the equivocational tendency of liberals. You constantly look for something "wrong" with the Constitution in order to foist your patently absurd agenda on the country because you KNOW that if you actually did it the correct way, by amending the constitution, it would NEVER happen, therefore you're left with no other choice but to LIE, and you don't even do it well.

FIRST: More personal name calling.

I have no idea why you act this way. Hopefully the Mods are tracking you and they'll just give ya a time out for awhile.

On the issue itself I know exactly what was meant... but that's not what it says word by word. You have to interpret it into speech of the day to know what that meant at the time.

If I walk outside and yell... All men that pretend to be cops jump up and down. No women are going to jump up and down because I only said "all men".

 

[Bob the Builder]

FIRST: More personal name calling.

I have no idea why you act this way. Hopefully the Mods are tracking you and they'll just give ya a time out for awhile.

On the issue itself I know exactly what was meant... but that's not what it says word by word. You have to interpret it into speech of the day to know what that meant at the time.

If I walk outside and yell... All men that pretend to be cops jump up and down. No women are going to jump up and down because I only said "all men".

You're STILL equivocating, but of course you don't know any better being a libtard and all. In 18th century English, the term "man" as used in this context meant ALL mankind, and everyone knew it. The fact that products of the modern public school system like you have to have it explained to you at this late stage in your lives, and even consider it a point to be discussed or "interpreted" only proves your intellectualy dishonesty.

 

[top gun]

You're STILL equivocating, but of course you don't know any better being a libtard and all. In 18th century English, the term "man" as used in this context meant ALL mankind, and everyone knew it. The fact that products of the modern public school system like you have to have it explained to you at this late stage in your lives, and even consider it a point to be discussed or "interpreted" only proves your intellectualy dishonesty.

I'm not "equivocating" one bit. Your position is that the exact wording is the exact wording. I'm saying you must go back to what that wording was likely to mean back at the time of it's writing. That's called interpreting the words not just verbatim but in the context of the time of the period.

Now tells us that big fat lie about being a cop again. Actually I wish you'd have ran with that lie a little longer we could of had the Barney Fife jokes all lined up. But you were busted out on that fairy tale so quickly no one got to use 'em. But it did super highlighted just how insecure you are in your own skin that you had to just make stuff up about yourself...

now that's gonna leave a mark.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I'm not "equivocating" one bit. Your position is that the exact wording is the exact wording. I'm saying you must go back to what that wording was likely to mean back at the time of it's writing. That's called interpreting the words not just verbatim but in the context of the time of the period.

Looking up the definition of a word is not "interpreting" tg, but given your limited intelligence I really wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend that fact. You've proven time and again that you can't even get your head wrapped around what the words "general welfare" mean, much less what "shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law..." mean, and you want to try to equivocate what "all men are created equal" means?

People like you are the reason that manufacturers have to write warnings telling people not to take "Preparation H" orally, and not to use hair dryers while they're in the bathtub.

Now tells us that big fat lie about being a cop again. Actually I wish you'd have ran with that lie a little longer we could of had the Barney Fife jokes all lined up.[/B] But you were busted out on that fairy tale so quickly no one got to use 'em. But it did super highlighted just how insecure you are in your own skin that you had to just make stuff up about yourself...

now that's gonna leave a mark.[/COLOR]

You've made the charge, now YOU substantiate it. Silly boy, you couldn't "bust" an 8 year old shoplifter! You're just PO'd because I've busted your silly butt so badly that you don't have any credibility left!

 

[Bob the Builder]

That's something that really bothers me about Libtard States like California. They seem to think that it's OK to infringe on peoples Constitutional rights if they don't agree with them, but let's look at the flaws in that position.

What if the old Confederate states decided that they didn't like the 13th Amendment, and decided on their own that it was OK to own slaves? How much hew and cry would go up over that, and how long do you think it would last? What if Utah decided that they didn't like the First Amendment prohibition against "state religion", and made Mormon the official State religion, and if you weren't Mormon you had to leave or be imprisoned? What if some states decided that they didn't like the 15th Amendment, and decided to ignore it too? What do you think would happen if Vermont decided that they didn't want to have to bother with search warrants any more because they were too much trouble?

What makes anyone think that there are "exceptions" to the very clear verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, but not to any of the other Amendments, or for that matter, in the body of the Constitution itself? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are there for a reason, and they may not be infringed upon, nor abrogated simply because someone decides that they don't like it, because once THAT door is opened, it's almost impossible to close it again, as we're plainly seeing today. Franklin has been proven correct, the sheeple have surrendered their Liberty for a bit of security, and now they have NEITHER.

BUMP AGAIN! Come on libs, can't you deal with the fact of your "interpretation"?

 

[PLC1]

Well PLC1, given that the 2nd Amendment clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", and given that in the state of Californication the PERMIT process through which someone must jump most certainly does infringe on that Right makes their laws unconstitutional on their face, and since the only group that I'm aware of that intentionally and consistently institutes laws that violate the constitution are libtards, well.....there it is. If something is a Right, you don't need to ask permission to exercise that Right, and if you do have to ask permission, then it's not a Right, but a privilege, and the last time I checked, James Madison wrote the "Bill of RIGHTS", not the "Bill of Privileges".



As I just said, the fact that you can't is by definition an INFRINGEMENT on your Right to "keep and bear arms".



Correct.



Correct.



It is your choice, but my question for you is this; Is your "choice" really based on your choice, or is it based on a culture that you've been inculcated in where the State decides when, where, and what kind of weapons you may or may not "keep and bear" without being harassed, detained, and possibly arrested by the local and state Gestapo?

Since all non "libtards", share the opinion that all arms of any kind must be allowed to be possessed anywhere, and since some the available arms in the 21 st. century include items that most of us would rather not share space with, is it time for an amendment to the Constitution?

It is difficult to argue that any law that infringes on the right to bear arms is constitutional, and equally difficult to argue that I, or anyone else, should have a set of armed and ready to go SAMs next to your favorite airport, perhaps it is time to begin debating some changes to that amendment.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Since all non "libtards", share the opinion that all arms of any kind must be allowed to be possessed anywhere, and since some the available arms in the 21 st. century include items that most of us would rather not share space with, is it time for an amendment to the Constitution?

No, it's just time for those who choose not to abide by their obligations as Americans to move to Canada, France, or some other "socially feminine" country.

It is difficult to argue that any law that infringes on the right to bear arms is constitutional, and equally difficult to argue that I, or anyone else, should have a set of armed and ready to go SAMs next to your favorite airport, perhaps it is time to begin debating some changes to that amendment.

The only changes I would make would be to require every able bodied American to have at least 1 service rifle, a full basic load of ammunition, and full field gear, ready to go at all times just as the Militia Act of 1798 required. I would also require monthly weapons training with a minimum of 100 rounds fired in order to maintain your proficiency. Those citizens who refuse to do so would be denied their privilege of voting, or receiving any public assistance whatsoever (to include Police, Fire, and EMS services). If you're not going to do your part for America, don't expect us to do anything for you.

Oh, and as for the SAMs, if you can afford 'em, buy 'em. If not, at least get an M-4/M-16, 6-30 round magazines loaded with 180 rounds of ammo, and a full set of field gear.

 

[top gun]

Looking up the definition of a word is not "interpreting" tg, but given your limited intelligence I really wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend that fact. You've proven time and again that you can't even get your head wrapped around what the words "general welfare" mean, much less what "shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make no law..." mean, and you want to try to equivocate what "all men are created equal" means?

Not at all. If you look up the word all it means every... and if you look up the word men it means male.

People like you are the reason that manufacturers have to write warnings telling people not to take "Preparation H" orally, and not to use hair dryers while they're in the bathtub.

This is just another personal attack and insult. So although I've tried to avoid this I'm now going to start reporting all of these types of posts and I ask that others on the board join me.

You've made the charge, now YOU substantiate it. Silly boy, you couldn't "bust" an 8 year old shoplifter! You're just PO'd because I've busted your silly butt so badly that you don't have any credibility left!

It's common knowledge now. You explained wrongly situations that using a gun would be legally acceptable that any Police Officer would know is not. You were complaining that you couldn't bring a gun into a courtroom when Police Officers can. And you said that every courtroom you've been in has at least 3 armed bailiffs when there is only one bailiff assigned to each judge and his courtroom whether armed or unarmed. And many other things. I will give you credit for not denying it though when you saw the bust out coming down.

Sorry about the report thing. I would have liked to see this go another way.