Duckman on gun control

[bben46]

Much better. :thumbsup: However, HeyYou. I would take you to the cleaners in a formal debate for using wikipedia as a source. If you can't attack the facts, attack the source. Wikipedia has had some problems in the past with credibility. I believe they have actually fixed those problems with some new policies, but by the other side bringing that up in a debate, you are forced to defend your source rather than your argument.

 

Unlike a formal debate where you usually have days to prepare with sources and arguments, then you are standing in front of the audience or judges with nothing beyond what you prepared. Here you have the luxury of being able to look up sources and take your time with replies.

 

In my University level public speaking and debate course, we debated gun control. Then the next week we swapped sides and did the same debate from the opposite point of view - You learn a lot when you have to counter your own arguments from the previous debate. BTW, My team won both times. Mainly because we were better prepared both times. :tongue:

[HeyYou]

His views... differ so much from mine that it invalidates the rest of his argument.

wat

 

He doesn't agree with him. :D

[Moveing]

RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!!

 

This rings in my head.

 

First of all, the supreme court hasn't the authority to interpret the constitution and the bill of rights. So here is another egghead actor, artist who things he can teach the people how to live. Typical for actors. Actors, Artists and these interlectuals are most of the time followers of communism.

 

He claims the Militia should be a part of the army and totaly controlled by the army. Thats not true at all. This is the same kind of scizoprhenic argument which allowed them to pass the National Guard Act.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean regulated by the government, it means regulare armed, regulare trained, this is the speech of these times.

 

And here is one of my favorite leftwing lies.

What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve?

The 2nd amendment isn't for Hunting or sport, its for self defence against criminals, invasion and corrupt government.

 

And here we go again.

AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD?

Something you will allways here from the communists. The greater good. The "greater good" killed billions of people in Russia, China, Cambodia and all these other places where psychophats have taken everyones guns for the greater good.

 

But at least at one thing he is totaly right. Yeah, he is a moron. And he should be removed. He should lose his US citizenship and move to a country which has a total gun ban.

I like the cleveland show but this is high treason. And just before the Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty.

 

Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, even in the countries the government makes law against the freedome of the people.

Take care, take arms.

 

Gun owners of america

 

 

PS:

He shouldn't STFU, i want these people keep talking and expose themself bit by bit.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Moveing

[marharth]

We are obviously communist spies planted here to cause people to argue about gun control on a gaming forum about RPGs. No question about it.

 

The debate section is just a joke these days.

Edited July 23, 2012 by marharth

[Marxist ßastard]

"Well regulated" doesn't mean regulated by the government, it means regulare armed, regulare trained, this is the speech of these times.

So what is a militia, how is it regulated, and why is it necessary to the security of a free state? In 1828 Webster defined militia thus: “The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.” And in 1776, Adam Smith stated it comprises those who “join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on.” That is, not all of a country's citizens, but an organized force of citizen soldiers. And such a force is regulated by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which allows Congress to organize and fund the militia, while the States train its members and appoint its officers. Congress used that power in organizing the National Guard. The National Guard is the militia; no other group or person may claim that title.

 

If the Framers had intended for everyone to have a completely unlimited right to keep firearms and carry them at all times, they would've phrased it exactly that way. They wouldn't have qualified it by talking about the National Guard first. And they could've used language proposed in the anti-Federalists' minority report, which would've explicitly stated a right to keep, carry, and use arms for hunting and self-defense. Instead, the Framers rejected that and went with the less inclusive wording above. It's only now that activist judges are blatantly misinterpreting the Constitution and allowing people too regressive even in 1789 to get their way.

Relevant parts of the Constitution:

 

Article I, section 8:

 

The Congress shall have power...

 

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

 

Article II, section 2:

 

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the... Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States

If you are not a member of the National Guard as organized by Congress, and prepared to serve the President in good faith, then the Second Amendment does not apply to you.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Marxist ßastard

[Dark0ne]

I'm seeing lots of ad hominem style retorts to what I thought was a pretty logically written piece, from an outsiders perspective. If you're not going to actually argue the point of whether assault rifles should or should not be banned, but instead just say the guy is an actor/communist/idiot whose opinions are irrelevant without actually validating your point then get the hell out of this thread. There's a slight irony in that he talks about people such as this within his long tweet...

 

If there's one thing I've noticed about most of American politics, and Americans, it's that it's so damn black and white. From the many Americans I've spoken to on the matter, if they support a party then they support them no matter what they do or say. If you're a democrat then Obama can do no wrong. If you're a republican then Romney can do no wrong. It's utterly ridiculous. I generally vote for the right-wing party in the UK, the Conservatives, but my god I don't agree with everything David Cameron does or says and I'm very vocal in both my support when he gets it right and my condemnation when he gets it wrong. I think it's safe to say all the folks I know here are very similar as well. Yes, we have a bias and a preference, but we don't let that bias or preference dictate and pollute our own beliefs and opinions. I have not found many Americans that are like this during my time, and it's very disappointing to see.

[pseudobio]

RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!!

 

This rings in my head.

 

First of all, the supreme court hasn't the authority to interpret the constitution and the bill of rights. So here is another egghead actor, artist who things he can teach the people how to live. Typical for actors. Actors, Artists and these interlectuals are most of the time followers of communism.

 

 

What? The Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution?

 

Article 3 of the constitution states otherwise:

 

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

 

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;– between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

Marbury vs. Madison also established the Court's right to interpret the Constitution, otherwise known as "Judicial Review".

 

 

As to the right to own handguns and rifles, I am a supporter, but military grade automatic weapons, RPG's, handgrenades, ect. should remain in the hands of the military alone.

[Syco21]

If you are not a member of the National Guard as organized by Congress, and prepared to serve the President in good faith, then the Second Amendment does not apply to you.

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.^[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Say what now? http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

[Moveing]

Marbury vs. Madison also established the Court's right to interpret the Constitution, otherwise known as "Judicial Review".

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Healthcare bill is constitutional. They can say raping little timmy infront of the white house would be constitutional when its not.

 

As to the right to own handguns and rifles, I am a supporter, but military grade automatic weapons, RPG's, handgrenades, ect. should remain in the hands of the military alone.

 

How to use red cross dynamite, Du Pont farmer's handbook - USA - 1912

 

This is a Handbook for Farmers how to use Dynamite. You could buy dynamite in every hardware store in these days and people didn't go postal on each other. I wanna live in a society where i can trust my neighbours to handle Dynamite.

I wanna allow them to buy TNT again. I want these freedoms back. Hell, i want a RPG in every Household! The Swiss have plastic explosive and Hand grenades in their houses! What kind of pussy whimpy bunch of minus-men did we become??

 

 

 

And here is something i totaly forgott. What the Traitor Alexander says about the other Traitor Alexander.

jason alexander

Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

 

Alexander Hamilton was probably a british agent just as Benedict Arnold was. He allways wanted a central bank, owned by european banking families and married into the Rothschild family till he was shoot by Aaron Burr.

Thats how to deal with Traitors Aaron! ^5 .

[Marxist ßastard]

claiming a right to gun ownership as a "free white male"

comparing the PPACA to child rape

accusing Alexander Hamilton of being a British spy aligned with the International Bankers' Conspiracy

MWSource or Stormfront?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Marxist ßastard