ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2015, 12:51 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 12:08 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The continued erosion of our rights, grain by grain, is, to put it mildly, disturbing. I don't think owning a gun can halt that erosion, nor do I think that erosion is the result of a "conspiracy" -- rather, it is bureaucracies doing what they do best, stamping down individuals in the name of "security".

I don't know that there is any answer, but I don't think surrendering yet another right is one of them.

Oh me and you are gonna get along just fine^^

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. -David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RinChi's post
29-10-2015, 01:02 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Australia? LOL.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 02:32 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 08:05 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I don't think that World Net Daily is satire, unless you're making a joke because they're a conservative editorial.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/body-slammed-...=education

Quote:A South Carolina school resource officer under fire for body slamming a female student during a classroom altercation may have only been responding to the girl’s punches, a third video ostensibly shows.

The video hasn’t been released to the public but is being discussed and analyzed by law enforcement investigating the incident, including those at the federal level.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said the first two videos that emerged of the scene – where senior deputy Ben Fields yanked the student from her chair and scuffled with her on the floor – seemed clear the officer used overly aggressive tactics. But at the same time, he said a third video has emerged that indicates the student was first punching the officer.

Satire.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
29-10-2015, 02:44 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Austria has been dealing with Muslims for a while now without the use of guns.

The Austrian village that's a Muslim holiday hotspot – in pictures

Quote:Ten years ago, the tourist board of Zell am See in Austria made a terrific call. According to the Qur’an, paradise looks like a lake surrounded by snow-capped mountains – so they started promoting their village to travel agencies in the Middle East. Now, the area receives 70,000 visitors from the Gulf States every year. Photographer Marieke van der Velden joins the tourists
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
29-10-2015, 03:09 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 02:32 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 08:05 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I don't think that World Net Daily is satire, unless you're making a joke because they're a conservative editorial.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/body-slammed-...=education

Quote:A South Carolina school resource officer under fire for body slamming a female student during a classroom altercation may have only been responding to the girl’s punches, a third video ostensibly shows.

The video hasn’t been released to the public but is being discussed and analyzed by law enforcement investigating the incident, including those at the federal level.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said the first two videos that emerged of the scene – where senior deputy Ben Fields yanked the student from her chair and scuffled with her on the floor – seemed clear the officer used overly aggressive tactics. But at the same time, he said a third video has emerged that indicates the student was first punching the officer.

Satire.

I just, the comments are the most depressing I've seen in ages. Despite stupid troll comments or plenty of childish bickering over mundane differences of views, I'm saddened by the mentality of folks.

People of the mentality that, well when I went to school back in the day, it was to "get good grades" ... just horrible to see that said with pride! Facepalm Not that actually learning or expanding but the point is to please the solution. So that's what the kids of the days need to do.

It's just as relevant to this that people want to see the event or a situation rather than grasp the factors of why and how it is ongoing.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
29-10-2015, 04:54 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 02:44 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Austria has been dealing with Muslims for a while now without the use of guns.

Quote:... Zell am See
...

I spent a couple of summer weeks there 20 years ago.

Beautiful place.

And the perfect time of year for not skiing.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 05:02 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 02:32 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 08:05 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I don't think that World Net Daily is satire, unless you're making a joke because they're a conservative editorial.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/body-slammed-...=education

Quote:A South Carolina school resource officer under fire for body slamming a female student during a classroom altercation may have only been responding to the girl’s punches, a third video ostensibly shows.

The video hasn’t been released to the public but is being discussed and analyzed by law enforcement investigating the incident, including those at the federal level.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said the first two videos that emerged of the scene – where senior deputy Ben Fields yanked the student from her chair and scuffled with her on the floor – seemed clear the officer used overly aggressive tactics. But at the same time, he said a third video has emerged that indicates the student was first punching the officer.

Satire.

More like bullshit. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 05:33 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 08:05 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 04:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You do realize that World Net Daily is a satirical conspiracy site.


Australia, Austria, you say tomato I say tahmato.

I don't think that World Net Daily is satire, unless you're making a joke because they're a conservative editorial.

I seem to recall "Weird Net Daily" was right on top of several "hot stories" --- like how the Iraqi WMDs had been smuggled onto a ship --- that apparently is still sailing around ---- somewhere.....................

Bottom line -- I'd be very wary of anything they publish......


Cuz even the National Enquirer gets it right, every once in a while..

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2015, 05:52 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 07:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  The 2nd amendment is so clearly written, one wonders why it would ever even need to be before the supreme Court.

If one reads it straight through, it's plain reading is simple to understand. The first three words of the Constitution are "we the people."

It doesn't take a law degree to know who "the people" are in the 2nd 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, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

The founders were very clear in their writings and speeches, I could probably spend an entire day posting their quotes on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Feel fee to post those quotes, but make sure it is actual quotes and not the bullshit that permeates the internet.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I'm curious as to what you think the history is. I'd bet even money it's not what you think.

The 2nd Amendment was about militias, period. Individual gun ownership in the 18th century was not nearly as ubiquitous as the gun lobby would have you believe. People were not walking around with guns as they went to ye old local tavern. People in cities generally didn't have guns and most farmers didn't have guns. One of the problems with the revolution early on was people showing up to fight and not having any guns. David McCullough's book 1776 goes into some detail on this topic. Guns were not everywhere. People were not clamoring for the right to keep guns. It was barely a topic of discussion at the time. Until the slave states brought it up that is.

At the time the Constitution was written and debated, the friction between free and slave states was already in play. The newly proposed Constitution made the President Commander and Chief of the military. The Constitution provides for the formation of a permanent navy, but not a permanent army. Funding for armies was to be for no more than 2 years. Standing armies were considered to be weapons of tyranny. But, the states - and especially the southern states - did have standing militias. The had these for 2 reasons: 1) threats from hostiles, including Indians and even the British in Canada, needed to be defended against and 2) to suppress slave revolts.

I don't know the exact demographics, and I won't guess, but slaves in the southern states already outnumbered whites. It wouldn't take much for them to rise up and massacre the whites that subjugated them into slavery. What prevented that from happening were guns, and specifically armed militias. Remember that arms back then were single shot weapons, so a plantation would have to employ a ton of guards to hold back their slaves. It wasn't economic. So, instead, the militias provided security and any slave that said "boo" was dealt with quickly and harshly. A commander and chief from a non-slave state that could order the state militia to go deal with something far from home was a real concern for the south. It would leave them defenseless. And, that is what the 2nd Amendment was constructed to deal with; a guarantee that the state's could always have their militias. Personal gun ownership and restrictions on it were never even a topic during the various debates. It wasn't something that came up.

There is a legal academic named Carl Bogus who has done a series of lectures on the history of the 2nd Amendment and he goes into great detail on the historical record and provides actual facts to back up his positions.

As a complete secondary, and unrelated, point on Bogus - when I was in law school in the early 90s, he was a visiting professor at my law school for a year. Back then he didn't do anything with the 2nd Amendment and I was very surprised when I discovered in the last 2 years his involvement. Back then he taught classes on evidence and product liability. Nothing that would lead you to think he would one day be at the forefront of the gun history in this country. Back then he was a slight man with average height (he's a little heavier 20+ years later, as are we all) He had one distinguishing feature though - he was hung like an elephant. I swear I'm not making this up. Males couldn't get within 4 rows of him because women filled every single seat to witness that 3rd leg swish around in his pants. He was like Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights. This is not a joke, he's really that hung.

Anyway, you can find videos of his lectures on Youtube if you're inclined.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
29-10-2015, 01:56 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2015 02:06 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(29-10-2015 05:52 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 07:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  The 2nd amendment is so clearly written, one wonders why it would ever even need to be before the supreme Court.

If one reads it straight through, it's plain reading is simple to understand. The first three words of the Constitution are "we the people."

It doesn't take a law degree to know who "the people" are in the 2nd 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, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

The founders were very clear in their writings and speeches, I could probably spend an entire day posting their quotes on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Feel fee to post those quotes, but make sure it is actual quotes and not the bullshit that permeates the internet.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I'm curious as to what you think the history is. I'd bet even money it's not what you think.

The 2nd Amendment was about militias, period. Individual gun ownership in the 18th century was not nearly as ubiquitous as the gun lobby would have you believe. People were not walking around with guns as they went to ye old local tavern. People in cities generally didn't have guns and most farmers didn't have guns. One of the problems with the revolution early on was people showing up to fight and not having any guns. David McCullough's book 1776 goes into some detail on this topic. Guns were not everywhere. People were not clamoring for the right to keep guns. It was barely a topic of discussion at the time. Until the slave states brought it up that is.

At the time the Constitution was written and debated, the friction between free and slave states was already in play. The newly proposed Constitution made the President Commander and Chief of the military. The Constitution provides for the formation of a permanent navy, but not a permanent army. Funding for armies was to be for no more than 2 years. Standing armies were considered to be weapons of tyranny. But, the states - and especially the southern states - did have standing militias. The had these for 2 reasons: 1) threats from hostiles, including Indians and even the British in Canada, needed to be defended against and 2) to suppress slave revolts.

I don't know the exact demographics, and I won't guess, but slaves in the southern states already outnumbered whites. It wouldn't take much for them to rise up and massacre the whites that subjugated them into slavery. What prevented that from happening were guns, and specifically armed militias. Remember that arms back then were single shot weapons, so a plantation would have to employ a ton of guards to hold back their slaves. It wasn't economic. So, instead, the militias provided security and any slave that said "boo" was dealt with quickly and harshly. A commander and chief from a non-slave state that could order the state militia to go deal with something far from home was a real concern for the south. It would leave them defenseless. And, that is what the 2nd Amendment was constructed to deal with; a guarantee that the state's could always have their militias. Personal gun ownership and restrictions on it were never even a topic during the various debates. It wasn't something that came up.

There is a legal academic named Carl Bogus who has done a series of lectures on the history of the 2nd Amendment and he goes into great detail on the historical record and provides actual facts to back up his positions.

As a complete secondary, and unrelated, point on Bogus - when I was in law school in the early 90s, he was a visiting professor at my law school for a year. Back then he didn't do anything with the 2nd Amendment and I was very surprised when I discovered in the last 2 years his involvement. Back then he taught classes on evidence and product liability. Nothing that would lead you to think he would one day be at the forefront of the gun history in this country. Back then he was a slight man with average height (he's a little heavier 20+ years later, as are we all) He had one distinguishing feature though - he was hung like an elephant. I swear I'm not making this up. Males couldn't get within 4 rows of him because women filled every single seat to witness that 3rd leg swish around in his pants. He was like Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights. This is not a joke, he's really that hung.

Anyway, you can find videos of his lectures on Youtube if you're inclined.

I agree, the 2nd amendment is about militias. And as George Mason said at the time, the people are the militia. It was common knowledge at the time what the true meaning of the 2nd amendment was. 8 of the 13 colonies had something similar to the 2nd amendment. The Virginia Constitution was used as the foundation of the Bill of Rights, which George Mason had originally wrote himself.

Virginia Constitution:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Pennsylvania Constitution:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Nearly everything I can find on the subject shows the founders were very weary of government power, standing armies etc and wanted the people to remain armed. This doesn't necessarily mean carrying their arms with them at all times, but it definitely wasn't odd or outlawed. Many were hunters, or lived on the frontier and carried everywhere.

The James Madison research library has put together a really great collection on the sentiment at the time. It really shows the mindset the founders, other leaders, journalists and citizens had at the time.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bo...ndment.htm

It's so easy to see exactly what they felt at the time, and what they meant. Although not as direct as some of the State Constitutions, the intent was obvious with the 2nd amendment. The wording might be a tad different than the other listed rights of the states but its obvious it was meant to be the same right. The main idea is clear. Because the government cannot be always be trusted to remain loyal to the people, the government shall have no right to craft laws that disarm the people under any circumstance. Shall not be INFRINGED. Ever.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: