Gun Threads - Merged

[KCFlyer]

 
 
Putting words in peoples mouth again. Please show where i said i "don't really care that the government overreached with the Patriot Act".
 
If you can show with proof how these meanings and phrases are different then so be it. I did. Try using the Oxford English Dictionary as a reference. It will show what words/phrases meant in different time periods.
 
Right to bear "arms" is not the same as right to bear "muskets". If it were to be limited as such it would have been written that way.  But it wasn't. 

 
So the founding fathers believed that the common folk would own cannons?  That would be hell on the cul-de-sac

 

[townpete]

 
So the founding fathers believed that the common folk would own cannons?  That would be hell on the cul-de-sac

 
Did they?

 

[KCFlyer]

 
Did they?

 
What's an arm in colonial days? 

 

[townpete]

 
What's an arm in colonial days? 

 
Sweet, where can i go buy a cannon?

 

[KCFlyer]

 
Sweet, where can i go buy a cannon?

 
If the founding fathers gave us the right to "bear arms"....what did they consider arms.  You seem to know so much about what the founding fathers were thinking...what did they consider "arms"?

 

[Kev3188]

Yes, most languages evolve over time.

Intent usually doesn't not.


We're a smart nation; we can figure this out.

 

[Kev3188]

 
You failing basic comprehension behind the difference between these three things: Word, Phrase and Term
 
The word "unreasonable" has always meant the same thing. If you're arguing how it was abused under the Patriot act then that has nothing to do with what i was talking about.
 
That is because to you, there is only the "bill of right"....screw the other 9.  You don't really care that an amedment was actually trampled....you are only concerned because the precious second amendment is "threatened".
 
You seem to think that there's some kind of "fine print" attached to constitution where it says "arms" are referred to as "muskets" and only "muskets." Guess what, there isn't.
 
Another poster said that the meaning of "well regulated" meant something different in our founding fathers day.  If one phrase can mean something different, why don't others.  So educate me....what other kinds of guns did the common folk own back when the constitution was written.  Muskets and single shot pistols. What other ones am I missing? 
 
You, like most liberals fail at what the constitution was intended for. It was to protect the individuals sovereignty over an over reaching government authority. Not the other way around.
 
Yet as I pointed out....you don't really care that the government overreached with the Patriot Act because after all....if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. 

Strange how passive the right has been w/r/t the 4th...

 

[KCFlyer]

Strange how passive the right has been w/r/t the 4th...

 
I agree....in this debate tonight, Pete lectured me about the constitution and the importance of the second amendment.  In fact, he had said:
 

[SIZE=9pt]You, like most liberals fail at what the constitution was intended for. It was to protect the individuals sovereignty over an over reaching government authority. Not the other way around.You, like most liberals fail at what the constitution was intended for. It was to protect the individuals sovereignty over an over reaching government authority. Not the other way around.[/SIZE]

 
[SIZE=9pt]Yet when the 4th amendment was trampled, not a single "I have guns to protect myself from an overreaching government" person fired a single shot of protection. [/SIZE]

 

[townpete]

 
I agree....in this debate tonight, Pete lectured me about the constitution and the importance of the second amendment.  In fact, he had said:
 
 
 
 
[SIZE=9pt]Yet when the 4th amendment was trampled, not a single "I have guns to protect myself from an overreaching government" person fired a single shot of protection. [/SIZE]

 
Didn't really lecture you at all. More like schooled you and then on cue you spun around in circles with the what if's, what if's, what if's.......

 

[Kev3188]

 
I agree....in this debate tonight, Pete lectured me about the constitution and the importance of the second amendment.  In fact, he had said:
 
 
Yet when the 4th amendment was trampled, not a single "I have guns to protect myself from an overreaching government" person fired a single shot of protection. 

Not only not a single shot, but all kinds of support for their own Government overreaching...

Talk about getting schooled...

 

[townpete]

Yes, most languages evolve over time.

Intent usually doesn't not.


We're a smart nation; we can figure this out.

 
We? Some are. but clearly not all. heh
 

 
If the founding fathers gave us the right to "bear arms"....what did they consider arms.  You seem to know so much about what the founding fathers were thinking...what did they consider "arms"?

 
You seem to know so much about what the founding fathers were thinking...what did they not consider "arms"?

 

[KCFlyer]

 
Didn't really lecture you at all. More like schooled you and then on cue you spun around in circles with the what if's, what if's, what if's.......

 
Address this fact...were the words from you I quoted NOT what you said?  Did the USA Patriot Act follow the constitutional guidelines for changing the constitution...or did the leadership of the country do a bit of "overreaching"?  If the government DID overreach a bit....why did none of today's "constitutionalists" take up arms in protest and protection of the constitution?  Why were liberals who DID shout long and loud about it dismissed as "terrorist supporting America haters"?  Note - not a single "what if" in there.  You said that the right to bear arms was put there to protect us from an overreaching government....yet when the government overreached....you sat back passively and let it happen.  The founding fathers would be ashamed of you.
 
Class dismissed. 

 

[townpete]

 
Address this fact...were the words from you I quoted NOT what you said?  Did the USA Patriot Act follow the constitutional guidelines for changing the constitution...or did the leadership of the country do a bit of "overreaching"?  If the government DID overreach a bit....why did none of today's "constitutionalists" take up arms in protest and protection of the constitution?  Why were liberals who DID shout long and loud about it dismissed as "terrorist supporting America haters"?  Note - not a single "what if" in there.  You said that the right to bear arms was put there to protect us from an overreaching government....yet when the government overreached....you sat back passively and let it happen.  The founding fathers would be ashamed of you.

 
I sat passively by? And let it all happen?
 
Someone call Bellevue, we have live one in need of jacket and a rubber room stat!

 

[KCFlyer]

 
I sat passively by? And let it all happen?
 
Someone call Bellevue, we have live one in need of jacket and a rubber room stat!

 
You and others didn't exercise your second amendment right to protect the constitution and the country from an overreaching government.   I don't own guns...you do.   You have that right....a right granted to protect the constitution and country from an overreaching government.  Did you ever use your gun to defend the constitution?
 
Have you ever said "if you havent' done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about"?    As I said...the founding fathers would be ashamed of you. 

 

[townpete]

 
You and others didn't exercise your second amendment right to protect the constitution and the country from an overreaching government.   I don't own guns...you do.   You have that right....a right granted to protect the constitution and country from an overreaching government.  Did you ever use your gun to defend the constitution?
 
Have you ever said "if you havent' done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about"?    As I said...the founding fathers would be ashamed of you. 

 
Does stomping your feet and screaming help you? Its it therapeutic?
 
Just asking.