|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
Judged:
1
Not quite, you shrill, ignorant, cowardly and effeminate communist-socialist: Historical results of 'gun control': http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/GunCon... Those who say "it can't happen here" are totally oblivious to historical FACT; In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 1932-33 Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin's 'government' sponsered famine, causing the deaths of 7 to 10 million in the Ukraine. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 1937-38 Japanese soldiers 'Rape' Nanking province of China, causing the deaths of 300,000. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 million Jews and countless others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.(Some estimates bring the total closer to 13 million!). Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Pol Pot's Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, over 2,000,000 people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by the Khmer Rouge. 1992-95 Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict; 200,000 dead. 1994 Rwanda, Hutu militia kill 800,000 Tutsis. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of 'gun control' or from the lack of being able to defend themselves: about 64,700,000 Spelled out, that is; SIXTY-FOUR MILLION, SEVEN-HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE! There are some reports, that the total number Murdered, is actually MUCH HIGHER! See:'Innocents Betrayed' on the J.P.F.O. website....(170,000,000) http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/index2.htm 'Gun control' has CAUSED FAR MORE DEATH than civilian gun ownership EVER will.
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28. http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F... "The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..." - Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821). http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirgi... "Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers." - John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).] http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV... “Afforded us by God & Nature” http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AffordedGo... “Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....” http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature... “...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...” http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/God&Natu... Life, Liberty and Property http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LifeLibertyP... George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/George... "the overruling law of self preservation" http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser... 'for the common defence'(?) http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... "Rights of the citizen declared to be --" http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRi... "The Right to Self Defense" http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right... "The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals." - President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.] http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat... Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories: Origins http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.ht... Precedent http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&am... After The Fact http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Conte... Amendment II and the Law http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/Contents.htm... "No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens." - George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment: The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AProclamat... The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.... It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights", Oct. 24, 1787 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... "The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... That's RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL 'gun control laws' are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court: Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat... Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894... Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1... Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895... Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895... Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18... Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896... Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke... Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS... Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18... Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896.... Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn... BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921). http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited... Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav... Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop... "It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution." - Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli... "Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee." - Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008. http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/d...
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice." - James Wilson,'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice). http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/OftheNatur... “The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature's laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency. “The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction. “This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, is thus beautifully described by that eloquent philosopher. "It is, indeed," says he, "a true law, conformable to nature, diffused among all men, unchangeable, eternal. By its commands, it calls men to their duty: by its prohibitions, it deters them from vice. To diminish, to alter, much more to abolish this law, is a vain attempt. Neither by the senate, nor by the people, can its powerful obligation be dissolved. It requires no interpreter or commentator. It is not one law at Rome, another at Athens; one law now, another hereafter: it is the same eternal and immutable law, given at all times and to all nations: for God, who is its author and promulgator, is always the sole master and sovereign of mankind." - James Wilson,[The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.; Chap. III Of the Law of Nature]. Mr. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In addition he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/TheWorksWils... "The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war." - Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan",(Outline s the Laws of Nature), 1651. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/LawsofNatu...
|
|
waz
|
GunShowOnTheNet wrote: Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court: Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat... Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894... Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1... Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895... Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895... Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18... Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896... Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke... Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS... Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18... Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896.... Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn... BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921). http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited... Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932 http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav... Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop... "It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution." - Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli... "Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee." - Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008. http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/d... Damn you spout a lot of garbage.....no one is talking about banning guns....just regulations that hod straw purchasers accountable, and hold stricter standards which ultimatelly makes guns harder for gangsters and criminals to obtain. These small changes in regulation MOST people are proposing should not have ANY affect on a right wing extremest like yourself...as long as you are a law abiding citizen and not MASSIVELY stockpiling weapons. I am a gun owner and I support reform!!!! If you want a semiautomatic weapon you need to be thoroughly investigated, and if you have too many handguns stolen from you then you lose privelages for being irresponsible, or a straw purchaser. For some reason I can not understand why right wing morons like your self think a little tigher regulation means "banning guns in entirety"....no one wants to lose the rights to protect themselves...but obvously the regs now make guns easily obtainable on the streets of philly. Do you take everything like this to NONSENSE EXTREMES so you can just vent your pent up frustration?
|
|
“Erudite Gun Enthusiast”
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
|
Judged:
1
waz wrote: <quoted text>
Damn you spout a lot of garbage.....no one is talking about banning guns....just regulations that hod straw purchasers accountable, and hold stricter standards which ultimatelly makes guns harder for gangsters and criminals to obtain.
These small changes in regulation MOST people are proposing should not have ANY affect on a right wing extremest like yourself...as long as you are a law abiding citizen and not MASSIVELY stockpiling weapons. I am a gun owner and I support reform!!!! If you want a semiautomatic weapon you need to be thoroughly investigated, and if you have too many handguns stolen from you then you lose privelages for being irresponsible, or a straw purchaser. For some reason I can not understand why right wing morons like your self think a little tigher regulation means "banning guns in entirety"....no one wants to lose the rights to protect themselves...but obvously the regs now make guns easily obtainable on the streets of philly. Do you take everything like this to NONSENSE EXTREMES so you can just vent your pent up frustration? Did the gun you own come from Toys R Us, or FAO Schwartz? Why the extra background check for a semi-auto? The problem with your reforms is the anti-gunners DO NOT compromise. They say "ok, we got them to agree to this.....not lets take that". They do want all your guns, you just refuse to believe it, but one of YOUR (as in liberal) senators said it outright on the floor of the senate...but go on and ignore that. Gun banners all seem to belong to the school of "give him an inch and he'll take a mile". Compromisers like you, if you actually own a gun, should be embarrased to post in here.
|
|
waz
|
Another Voice Heard From wrote: <quoted text>
Did the gun you own come from Toys R Us, or FAO Schwartz?
Why the extra background check for a semi-auto?
The problem with your reforms is the anti-gunners DO NOT compromise. They say "ok, we got them to agree to this.....not lets take that". They do want all your guns, you just refuse to believe it, but one of YOUR (as in liberal) senators said it outright on the floor of the senate...but go on and ignore that.
Gun banners all seem to belong to the school of "give him an inch and he'll take a mile". Compromisers like you, if you actually own a gun, should be embarrased to post in here. Obviously you are a sarcastic individual who believes everyone thinks the same....and that tighter regulation on a semi automatic weapon that is only meant for mass human destruction means total ban of guns. Seems like Right wing extremists like yourself are the ones who can not comprimise a little on Phillys out dated gun ownership laws. I firmly believe people like youself who blow the issue out of porportion and drive your gun owning macho mentality just like to sit there and admire and polish your arsenal to feel like more of a man, or feel like you are god, rather then buying a gun for protection and keeping them from others who do not deserve them....unless you are on the side of the gangs. You obvoiously feel there would be embarassment in myself being a reasnable owner of 1 gun for protection, and posting my view which means you are shallow, reinforcing my notion that you want guns to feel better about yourself, not for protection. Get your A$$ up to philly and you would see why semi automatic life ending guns that gangs can easily get due to our laws...needs to be reformed, there is no point and shoot with them, just pepper the area with bullets and hit everyone. If YOU were a true gun owner you would know guns demand respect, and only those most respectful and worthy should own them, but obvously you a pitiful man that just wants to be a tough guy, probablly doesn't even own a gun, and blow my comments out of proportion, which theroies like youre and people like yourself are why Philly has bigger problems then other cities that have adopted reform for slightly tighter purchse regulation....hence the word purchase, which and idiot like yourself doesn't realize means..YOU CAN STILL BUY AS MANY OF THEM TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF UNLESS YOU ARE A CRIMINAL OR CONSTANTLY GET THEM "STOLEN"!!!!!
|
|
|
|
“Erudite Gun Enthusiast”
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
|
waz wrote: <quoted text>
Obviously you are a sarcastic individual who believes everyone thinks the same....and that tighter regulation on a semi automatic weapon that is only meant for mass human destruction means total ban of guns. Seems like Right wing extremists like yourself are the ones who can not comprimise a little on Phillys out dated gun ownership laws.
I firmly believe people like youself who blow the issue out of porportion and drive your gun owning macho mentality just like to sit there and admire and polish your arsenal to feel like more of a man, or feel like you are god, rather then buying a gun for protection and keeping them from others who do not deserve them....unless you are on the side of the gangs.
You obvoiously feel there would be embarassment in myself being a reasnable owner of 1 gun for protection, and posting my view which means you are shallow, reinforcing my notion that you want guns to feel better about yourself, not for protection.
Get your A$$ up to philly and you would see why semi automatic life ending guns that gangs can easily get due to our laws...needs to be reformed, there is no point and shoot with them, just pepper the area with bullets and hit everyone.
If YOU were a true gun owner you would know guns demand respect, and only those most respectful and worthy should own them, but obvously you a pitiful man that just wants to be a tough guy, probablly doesn't even own a gun, and blow my comments out of proportion, which theroies like youre and people like yourself are why Philly has bigger problems then other cities that have adopted reform for slightly tighter purchse regulation....hence the word purchase, which and idiot like yourself doesn't realize means..YOU CAN STILL BUY AS MANY OF THEM TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF UNLESS YOU ARE A CRIMINAL OR CONSTANTLY GET THEM "STOLEN"!!!!! Let me see. YOU use terms like "mass human destruction", yet call me an extremist. Go figure. Actually most of my guns are for my wife and daughters to use when we go shooting. They love it and I love watching them enjoy themselves. The main problem Philly seems to have is irrational hoplophobes in positions of power who can't seem to figure out the state laws of Pennsylvania prohibit their attempts to deny people their rights. Take care of your criminals and you won't need to worry about the guns. And yes, I am a tough guy.....the people of my state pay me to be.
|
|
“Erudite Gun Enthusiast”
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
|
waz wrote: <quoted text>
Obviously you are a sarcastic individual who believes everyone thinks the same....and that tighter regulation on a semi automatic weapon that is only meant for mass human destruction means total ban of guns. Seems like Right wing extremists like yourself are the ones who can not comprimise a little on Phillys out dated gun ownership laws.
I firmly believe people like youself who blow the issue out of porportion and drive your gun owning macho mentality just like to sit there and admire and polish your arsenal to feel like more of a man, or feel like you are god, rather then buying a gun for protection and keeping them from others who do not deserve them....unless you are on the side of the gangs.
You obvoiously feel there would be embarassment in myself being a reasnable owner of 1 gun for protection, and posting my view which means you are shallow, reinforcing my notion that you want guns to feel better about yourself, not for protection.
Get your A$$ up to philly and you would see why semi automatic life ending guns that gangs can easily get due to our laws...needs to be reformed, there is no point and shoot with them, just pepper the area with bullets and hit everyone.
If YOU were a true gun owner you would know guns demand respect, and only those most respectful and worthy should own them, but obvously you a pitiful man that just wants to be a tough guy, probablly doesn't even own a gun, and blow my comments out of proportion, which theroies like youre and people like yourself are why Philly has bigger problems then other cities that have adopted reform for slightly tighter purchse regulation....hence the word purchase, which and idiot like yourself doesn't realize means..YOU CAN STILL BUY AS MANY OF THEM TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF UNLESS YOU ARE A CRIMINAL OR CONSTANTLY GET THEM "STOLEN"!!!!! By the way, you come onto this thread, foaming at the mouth, hurling insults at someone you disagree with, and you get your panties in a twist because I get sarcastic? Glass houses, friend. Furthermore, the "reforms" you seem to want would require changing the Bill of Rights (which have never been further amended) and apparently the Constitution of Pennsylvania......lots o'luck there.
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
waz wrote: <quoted text>
Damn you spout a lot of garbage.....no one is talking about banning guns....just regulations that hod straw purchasers accountable, and hold stricter standards which ultimatelly makes guns harder for gangsters and criminals to obtain.
These small changes in regulation MOST people are proposing should not have ANY affect on a right wing extremest like yourself...as long as you are a law abiding citizen and not MASSIVELY stockpiling weapons. I am a gun owner and I support reform!!!! If you want a semiautomatic weapon you need to be thoroughly investigated, and if you have too many handguns stolen from you then you lose privelages for being irresponsible, or a straw purchaser. For some reason I can not understand why right wing morons like your self think a little tigher regulation means "banning guns in entirety"....no one wants to lose the rights to protect themselves...but obvously the regs now make guns easily obtainable on the streets of philly. Do you take everything like this to NONSENSE EXTREMES so you can just vent your pent up frustration? WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK "shall NOT be infringed" MEANS, you cowardly and effeminate communistic-socialistic piece of treasonous sh*t? OUR GOVERNMENTS WERE EXPRESSLY DENIED >ANY< DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ENACT >ANY< 'law' WHICH CONTRAVENES THAT SPECIFIC RIGHT. Are you a SYCOPHANT?- "Let it be remembered finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended, were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the author of these rights, on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form at this time the basis of thirteen independent states. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of Republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other virtues qualities which ennoble the character of a nation, and fulfil the ends of government, be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre which it has never yet enjoyed; and an example will be set which cannot fail to but have the most favourable influence on the rights of mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal and essential qualities virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favour of the rights of human nature will be turned against them, and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the sycophants votaries of tyranny and usurpation." - James Madison, Journals of the Continental Congress, Address to the States, by the United States Congress Assembled. April 26, 1783. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins/Ma... “Those who trade essential Liberty for temporary security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security.” - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
waz wrote: <quoted text>
Damn you spout a lot of garbage.....no one is talking about banning guns....just regulations that hod straw purchasers accountable, and hold stricter standards which ultimatelly makes guns harder for gangsters and criminals to obtain.
These small changes in regulation MOST people are proposing should not have ANY affect on a right wing extremest like yourself...as long as you are a law abiding citizen and not MASSIVELY stockpiling weapons. I am a gun owner and I support reform!!!! If you want a semiautomatic weapon you need to be thoroughly investigated, and if you have too many handguns stolen from you then you lose privelages for being irresponsible, or a straw purchaser. For some reason I can not understand why right wing morons like your self think a little tigher regulation means "banning guns in entirety"....no one wants to lose the rights to protect themselves...but obvously the regs now make guns easily obtainable on the streets of philly. Do you take everything like this to NONSENSE EXTREMES so you can just vent your pent up frustration? If you don't like it the way our Constitutional Republic was INTENDED to be - then LEAVE. Your shrill cowardly and effeminate communist-socialist ways are NOT going to control my life, you simplistic and treasonous p.o.s. If you work towards aiding in the tyranny and usurpation of your fellow citizens God-given, and INALIENABLE Natural Rights. Then, you are nothing more than a TRAITOR: The fate of Traitors http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/TheFateofTra... MEN DIED TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS FOR US, YOU MORONIC AND UNGRATEFUL JACK@SS. And, I'll be damned if cowardly little spineless worms like you are going to take them away....
|
|
waz
|
take your own advice buddy, YOU cast the first stone...sarcasm of toy guns and twisting my words to state all reformists are the same with close minded views of banning all guns. This is why progress is hard to make, is because people can not open their minds.....then right wings portray reform as irrational. Obvoisly I do not take this issue lightly, especially when people unaffected, and would continue to be affected by modest legislation reform, demean all points of view as irrational. I agree, reform in PA will not be easy, but with people like myself fighting for responsible and accountable gun ownership in our state (remeber this post) mark my words IT WILL HAPPEN, change is on the horizion. You will probablly not even know when it happens....unless you purchase guns for criminals or stock up on semiautomatic weapons on a daily basis. You'll just hear about it on the news....and illegal guns will harder to come by in our city.
|
|
waz
|
GunShowOnTheNet wrote: <quoted text> WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK "shall NOT be infringed" MEANS, you cowardly and effeminate communistic-socialistic piece of treasonous sh*t? OUR GOVERNMENTS WERE EXPRESSLY DENIED >ANY< DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO ENACT >ANY< 'law' WHICH CONTRAVENES THAT SPECIFIC RIGHT. Are you a SYCOPHANT?- "Let it be remembered finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended, were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the author of these rights, on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form at this time the basis of thirteen independent states. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of Republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other virtues qualities which ennoble the character of a nation, and fulfil the ends of government, be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre which it has never yet enjoyed; and an example will be set which cannot fail to but have the most favourable influence on the rights of mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal and essential qualities virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favour of the rights of human nature will be turned against them, and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the sycophants votaries of tyranny and usurpation." - James Madison, Journals of the Continental Congress, Address to the States, by the United States Congress Assembled. April 26, 1783. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins/Ma... “Those who trade essential Liberty for temporary security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security.” - Benjamin Franklin I agree, our civial rights of gun ownership shall not be revoked as...I continue to state over and over again....but if our founding fathers that lived in philly and lived on the same blocks they did in todays enviornment....they would vote for modest reform as an ammendment...in which they, as our founding fathers, realized they made laws that would need to be reformed in our future, due to changes that constantly occur in our evolution as a country. No one is trading an essential liberty, unless they are stupid enough to think all guns should be banned, relying on good karma to keep them safe. Learn the difference between reforming regulation and banning all guns if you want to have a meaningful debate......rather than push documentation of centuries old statements and label my views as extreme and unamerican.
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
waz wrote: take your own advice buddy, YOU cast the first stone...sarcasm of toy guns and twisting my words to state all reformists are the same with close minded views of banning all guns.
This is why progress is hard to make, is because people can not open their minds.....then right wings portray reform as irrational.
Obvoisly I do not take this issue lightly, especially when people unaffected, and would continue to be affected by modest legislation reform, demean all points of view as irrational.
I agree, reform in PA will not be easy, but with people like myself fighting for responsible and accountable gun ownership in our state (remeber this post) mark my words IT WILL HAPPEN, change is on the horizion. You will probablly not even know when it happens....unless you purchase guns for criminals or stock up on semiautomatic weapons on a daily basis. You'll just hear about it on the news....and illegal guns will harder to come by in our city. ONCE AGAIN, YOU OBVIOUSLY IGNORANT COWARDLY AND EFFEMINATE PIECE OF COMMUNISTIC-SOCIALISTIC SH*T; What in the hell do you think "shall NOT be infringed" means? Here's a clue for you, O 'simple one: "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette. "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tenche Coxe,'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
waz wrote: <quoted text>
I agree, our civial rights of gun ownership shall not be revoked as...I continue to state over and over again....but if our founding fathers that lived in philly and lived on the same blocks they did in todays enviornment....they would vote for modest reform as an ammendment...in which they, as our founding fathers, realized they made laws that would need to be reformed in our future, due to changes that constantly occur in our evolution as a country.
No one is trading an essential liberty, unless they are stupid enough to think all guns should be banned, relying on good karma to keep them safe. Learn the difference between reforming regulation and banning all guns if you want to have a meaningful debate......rather than push documentation of centuries old statements and label my views as extreme and unamerican. Consider the PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the British-American 'subject' BEFORE the Constitution. As it was explained by a very knowledgeable and well known authority; "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." - William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Commentari... Then, let us give our attention to how the new American Citizen's Right was dramatically improved AFTER the Constitution; "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...." "....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." "...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..." - St. George Tucker, U.S. District Court Judge, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803). http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/BlackCommTuc... SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
|
|
waz
|
GunShowOnTheNet wrote: <quoted text> If you don't like it the way our Constitutional Republic was INTENDED to be - then LEAVE. Your shrill cowardly and effeminate communist-socialist ways are NOT going to control my life, you simplistic and treasonous p.o.s. If you work towards aiding in the tyranny and usurpation of your fellow citizens God-given, and INALIENABLE Natural Rights. Then, you are nothing more than a TRAITOR: The fate of Traitors http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/TheFateofTra... MEN DIED TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS FOR US, YOU MORONIC AND UNGRATEFUL JACK@SS. And, I'll be damned if cowardly little spineless worms like you are going to take them away.... I am a cowardly gun owner who BELIEVES in gun ownership???? Obvoiusly you do not read my posts...but just enjoy spouting the arsenal of PRO right wing UNREGULATED gun ownership propaganda you continue to post and label any change as unpatriotic and tratiorus. Obvoiulsy you can't read if you think I am pushing to take your civil liberties away, the words I post a black and white in front of you, I am pro gun ownership. Hither and annoy elsewhere, or learn to read you ignorant tyrant.
|
|
waz
|
GunShowOnTheNet wrote: <quoted text> ONCE AGAIN, YOU OBVIOUSLY IGNORANT COWARDLY AND EFFEMINATE PIECE OF COMMUNISTIC-SOCIALISTIC SH*T; What in the hell do you think "shall NOT be infringed" means? Here's a clue for you, O 'simple one: "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette. "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tenche Coxe,'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/... once again you spout more propaganda.....did I mention we should ban guns??....did I mention that america should not have gun owning milita? NOT AT ALL, just keep Sh!^ing out of your mouth to feel better about yourself and feel tough. It's easy for you to call people cowards when you are not face to face, grow a pair!
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
waz wrote: <quoted text>
once again you spout more propaganda.....did I mention we should ban guns??....did I mention that america should not have gun owning milita? NOT AT ALL, just keep Sh!^ing out of your mouth to feel better about yourself and feel tough. It's easy for you to call people cowards when you are not face to face, grow a pair! GUARANTEE THAT YOU WOULD NOT STATE THAT TO MY FACE, YOU COMPROMISING PUNK. In all ACTUALITY it is YOU that needs to "grow a pair". I stand up for our Natural Rights AS THEY WERE INTENDED. You seem perfectly satisfied with allowing our SERVANTS to decide what rights we can have. And, how they can be utilized by We The People. YOU HAVE IT BACK@SSWARDS, you ignorant clown. WE THE PEOPLE TELL OUR SERVANTS WHAT RIGHTS THAT THEY ARE TO KEEP >SECURE< FOR US. AS WELL AS WHAT THEY CAN, AND CANNOT "regualate". And, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, they were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY law which contravenes that specific Natural Right.
|
|
waz
|
GunShowOnTheNet wrote: <quoted text> Consider the PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the British-American 'subject' BEFORE the Constitution. As it was explained by a very knowledgeable and well known authority; "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." - William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Commentari... Then, let us give our attention to how the new American Citizen's Right was dramatically improved AFTER the Constitution; "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...." "....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." "...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..." - St. George Tucker, U.S. District Court Judge, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803). http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/BlackCommTuc... SEE THE DIFFERENCE? by the way....are there a lot of gangs doing straw purchases and drive bys in Arizona? Or since guns in your area HAVE TO BE REPORTED WHEN STOLEN, it doesn't matter. Here someone could buy an SKS, pretend it was stolen, NOT REPORT IT, someone kills a cop with it and the purchaser gets off scott free!!!!! Do you believe this is right and should be allowed to happen over and over?....be a man and a real american and answer that truthfully!!!!!!
|
Olympics
Judge it!
