May
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Who's Online Now
4 members (susjwp, HalfaDouble, Jerry G, 1 invisible), 180 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,547
Posts546,184
Members14,423
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 16 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 15 16
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,751
Likes: 97
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,751
Likes: 97
and as to the notion that all rights are included in the constitution...that comes from the english concept of rights, where rights are granted to the people by the british parliament...the british people have no unalienable rights. whereas, we the people of the united states, retain all of our unalienable rights not delegated to the federal government nor denied to us by our state or local governments...the 10th amendment is very clear about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Last edited by ed good; 06/25/16 10:15 PM.

keep it simple and keep it safe...
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,751
Likes: 97
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,751
Likes: 97
so, as to an interpretation of the second amendment...pause until tomorrow...

Last edited by ed good; 06/25/16 10:24 PM.

keep it simple and keep it safe...
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346
Likes: 391
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346
Likes: 391
Originally Posted By: King Brown
I take this first-hand from visiting Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters pollsters and writers in London visiting us for a few days.


This is very strange King. You claim in the "Strong $US vs. Pound Sterling" thread to have several distinguished international visitors staying with you. Yet you have been here most of the day posting your usual Liberal Left B.S. instead of entertaining your visitors. How very rude.

It would appear that engaging in an off-topic discussion in this thread with Ed Good is more important to you than your company. Are you and fellow troll Ed that intent on attempting to steer the discussion away from your anti-gun rhetoric?

I wouldn't blame your visitors if they just went home. But they would actually have to be visiting you in order to leave, wouldn't they? I sure hope I don't get similarly afflicted when I get old.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Please leave it be, Ed. The Second has been argued for generations. Clearly, imagined "inalienable"rights have been given and taken away. Arbiters seek what's reasonable for peace, order and good government. Canada has found a generally acceptable balance for an increasingly multicultural world.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346
Likes: 391
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346
Likes: 391
We have already seen your idea of what the 2nd Amendment is Ed. But do you remember this gentlemanly exchange of ideas Ed? This exchange was between Jim and your fellow anti-gun troll, King Brown. It occurred in the " Contraception Mandate - A New Libtard Smokescreen" Thread in July of 2014.

In this exchange, your pal King, who claims to be pro-gun, once again is disputing the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Then, as has happened numerous times in the past, Jim corrects him by providing quotes from the Framers of the Constitution. Read it and weep.

First we hear from King, who claims to be pro-gun. This is from his post # 372221 on 7/10/14:

Originally Posted By: King Brown
I believe what Levin says about the Second was in the the Founders' minds. The pity is they didn't write it down. They wanted to protect the states from federal interference, for sure. But the country is still wrangling with the Second to the point that courts are allowing various levels to regulate from popular vote.


Then we have Jim's reply minutes later in post # 372230

Originally Posted By: James M
"Didn't write it down"? How the hell many times am I going to have to continue posting this until it sinks into the thick Libtard skulls here?
Jim

Quotes on the Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"


The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States



But this is nothing new. Your anti-gun pal King Brown has been trotting out the same anti-2nd Amendment bullshit here for years. Even when he is corrected about it, he still returns to repeat the same propaganda used by anti-gun organizations. Here he is posting falsehoods about Mark Levin's beliefs about the 2nd Amendment in 2013. We all know Justice Stevens is an anti-gunner on the Liberal Left wing of the Supreme Court, but King tried to portray him as a Conservative:

Originally Posted By: King Brown
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."

All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist.


Here's a link to a thread where King was doing the same crap in 2007:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

And here is just one of the replies given to correct King then:

Originally Posted By: Pete
The Supreme Court has NEVER viewed the 2nd Amendment as a collective right. The socialist King Brown from socialist Canada may like to think so, but he is deluded. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was investigated in the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary US Senate, 97th Congress second session 2/82.There were even some severe low lifes on the committee like Teddy Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum, Joe Biden, and Dennis DeConcini. The obvious conclusion was that it was an individual right originating as a natural right from God and guaranteed in the Constitution. Moreover, after it passed, later in the day someone tried to rephrase it as a collective right, and that was defeated.


Pro-gun guys simply do not engage in stuff like this. They sure as hell don't repeat anti-gun dogma and propaganda multiple times. You are almost as bad as King when it comes to seeking out ways to denigrate or diminish the 2nd Amendment Ed. It is no surprise to see you two anti-gun birds of a feather always defending each other. Jim says King's anti-gun words need to be saved here. I agree. I am waiting for the day I can post every damned one of them as King's legacy in the "Silent Doubles" forum. As for you Ed, someone can start a "Silent Doubles" tribute to you now, because you are obviously brain dead.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498
Likes: 396
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498
Likes: 396
Originally Posted By: ed good
and as to the notion that all rights are included in the constitution...that comes from the english concept of rights, where rights are granted to the people by the british parliament...the british people have no unalienable rights. whereas, we the people of the united states, retain all of our unalienable rights not delegated to the federal government nor denied to us by our state or local governments...the 10th amendment is very clear about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


I might suggest you have that backwards Ed. It is the Napoleonic Code and the American Bill of Rights that started the idea that rights could be "given" by a government. The US also happened to note that some rights were intrinsic to just being a person.

The British system is more based on the idea that we have all the rights in the world to do whatever we want. But we allow the government, over time and with experience (English common law) to place some restrictions on us (take certain rights away).


The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346
Likes: 391
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,346
Likes: 391
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Please leave it be, Ed. The Second has been argued for generations. Clearly, imagined "inalienable"rights have been given and taken away. Arbiters seek what's reasonable for peace, order and good government. Canada has found a generally acceptable balance for an increasingly multicultural world.


The above statement by King about Canada's strict gun laws being "generally acceptable in an increasingly multicutural world" sounds very racist to me.

Hey King, are you discussing this problem of not being a lily-white mono-culture with your distinguished imaginary international house guests over breakfast this morning?

I was reading a National Observer article this morning comparing Canadian gun laws and homicide to the U.S. One thing that jumped out at me was the statement made by the Liberal PM after the San Bernardino terrorist attack earlier this year:

"“Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of San Bernardino tonight as they come to grips with today’s terrible tragedy,” said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a tweet on Dec. 2.

However, the Liberals did promise during the election to tighten up gun laws that were eased under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The proposed measures include enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to buy a handgun or other restricted firearms and toughen up border security to prevent the illegal import of weapons from the U.S.

The Trudeau Liberals have also promised to repeal changes made by Conservative-era Bill C-42 that they say allows restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit."


One might think that a self-professed pro-gunner like King would be concerned about the threat made by the Liberal Government to re-institute the Long Gun Registry. But in my opinion, King never had anything to do with repealing it, and probably supported it. We all know that if the bloviator King had anything at all to do with the repeal of the Long Gun Registry, we'd have never heard the end of it. I believe that his recent claims about that are just as imaginary as his imaginary international house guests that he pretty much ignored by repeatedly posting and visiting this forum yesterday.

I wish I had the time to create a fictitious internet persona to bolster my credibility. But on the other hand, that would also make me pathetic too.

Oh yes, the promise by the Liberal PM Justin Trudeau to tighten up border security in the aftermath of San Bernardino sounds a bit like Donald Trump.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 565
dal Offline
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 565
kieth....tell us about our Canadian gun laws and how strict they are please.


Life is too short to have a 'hate on' for so many things or people. Isn't it?
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
James M Offline OP
Sidelock
**
OP Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
I don't know about Keith but just a quick perusal of Canadian Firearms laws produced this:
A significant number of the firearms I own would either be restricted or prohibited and I find that highly objectionable in what is purportedly a free Country:

Overview of Firearms-Control Laws and Regulations

At the federal level in Canada, firearms are predominantly regulated by the Firearms Act[1] and Part III of the Criminal Code.[2] Apart from these federal laws, “[p]rovinces, territories or municipalities may have additional laws and regulations that apply in their jurisdiction. For example, provinces are responsible for regulating hunting.”[3]

Categories of Firearms

The Criminal Code identifies “the various firearms, weapons and devices regulated by the Firearms Act.”[4] The Code classifies firearms into three categories: restricted,[5] prohibited,[6] and non-restricted.[7] Non-restricted firearms “include ordinary shotguns and rifles, such as those commonly used for hunting. But some military type rifles and shotguns are prohibited.”[8] Restricted firearms include “certain handguns and some semi-automatic long guns (not all semi-automatic long guns are restricted or prohibited). Rifles that can be fired when telescoped or folded to shorter than 660 millimeters, or 26 inches, are also restricted.”[9] Prohibited firearms “include most 32 and 25 caliber handguns and handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or shorter. Fully automatic firearms, converted automatics, firearms with a sawed-off barrel, and some military rifles like the AK 47 are also prohibited.”[10]

My Luger collection for example would be prohibited and I find this alone to be ludicrous! And I also believe I've been told that those "deadly" M1 carbines are prohibited as well.
Jim


The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498
Likes: 396
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498
Likes: 396
Originally Posted By: dal
kieth....tell us about our Canadian gun laws and how strict they are please.


Well Dal, I'm not Keith, but I can talk a bit about how strict our gun laws are compared to the US. Especially concerning what are known as restricted (includes most hand guns) and prohibited guns and ATT's, the arbitrary assignment of guns to those categories based primarily on whether the gun looks scary or not and the utter inability to use a gun for defense.

Whatever your political viewpoints are and however they may differ from Keith's, to suggest our guns laws are not strict in comparison to the US is to negate any credibility you might have on the subject. Instead of pretending they aren't strict, perhaps a good argument in their favour might be worthwhile. Why, it's possible I might even agree with some of your points.

My objection to gun laws in Canada and the US is based mostly on my belief that there is no level of accommodation to the anti gun lobby that will satisfy them. EVERY law, every regulation is simply one step closer to a total ban of all types of firearms.

Last edited by canvasback; 06/26/16 10:13 AM.

The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
Page 7 of 16 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 15 16

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.067s Queries: 35 (0.041s) Memory: 0.8933 MB (Peak: 1.9023 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-05-22 17:18:38 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS