GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2013, 11:08   #26
Lone Wolf8634
Misanthrope
 
Lone Wolf8634's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Under the bus
Posts: 6,539
Shouldnt anti-gunners be called traitors?

Depends on the anti's in question.

The soccer mom down the street who "hates" guns because she's never even held one and doesn't know Jack Schitt about them?

The hippy who thinks we should all live in peace around a campfire singing "We are the world"?

The movie star who might be best known for portraying angry violent people with guns shooting every enemy?

Or the shallow minded person who believes there's a simple solution to a complex problem and by getting rid of guns all the violence on the news will disappear?

Nah. They ain't traitors. They may be ignorant, misinformed, brainwashed, unable to grasp complex subjects or just unwilling to think a subject through to it's logical conclusion.

They can yell and holler all they want, and though I may wish for a bus to come along and shut 'em up, they're still just misinformed, lazy thinking idiots and possibly cowards. But not traitors.

Now, the money grubbing, power hungry, elitist, scumbag politicians and activist judges who can actually do some damage, the media who vomits all the misinformation and turns nutjobs who kill children into household names so the next nutjob has a goal to shoot for (pun intended). Yeah, they're traitors, the politicians took an oath to abide by the COTUS and they know damn well what it says and what it means. They know exactly what the Framers meant by "Shall not be infringed", don't tell me they've never read any of the other documents, letters, essays and papers that expands on what the COTUS says.

Yeah, they're traitors.
__________________
"Before diagnosing yourself with depression or low self esteem, be sure that you are not, in fact, surrounded by A-holes." - William Gibson

"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
Lone Wolf8634 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:10   #27
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,566
Blog Entries: 1


TBO is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:20   #28
jmaj
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 34
The current supreme court likes to consult dictionaries. I went to the OED to discern the meaning of "regulate".

Regulate mean control, so, yes the government can control the types of arms being kept and borne.

Heller was a huge win, I wouldn't look too closely in the mouth of a gift horse.
jmaj is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:43   #29
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
This argument needs to end, because it makes gun rights crowd look bullheaded, stubborn, and uneducated.

Let me give you another example:

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech"

And yet the FCC exists, restricting content of broadcasts.

When you start standing up for full-blown, hard-core porn to be broadcast on NBC at 7pm, then you can make the "shall not be infringed" arguments.

As for the Supreme Court on AWB/magazine restrictions, it has yet to be determined. "Heller" said reasonable restrictions are acceptable. "McDonald" said that applies to the States as well. And "Reasonable" has yet to be decided, but I'm willing to bet a case will be coming soon, probably out of New York, that will help make that determination.
Ive always thought that was a violation of the 1st amendment! brb cant say naughty words on tv or show your body cause we have primitive puritanical morals. Im a Libertarian so I believe in freedom. There use to be a radio show in my city called Love Phones where people called in for relationship help and then one day they decided to get this sex therapist couple in there and he fingered her till orgasm on air... next day they acted like it never existed, show was just gone.
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:45   #30
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Of course not, and that's just showing you're being willfully narrow-minded.

Porn DOES = the FIRST Amendment (the courts have said so), but it's still RESTRICTED on when/where/how it can be displayed.

Why are you okay with restrictions on the First Amendment?
I'm not!
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:50   #31
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634 View Post
Depends on the anti's in question.

The soccer mom down the street who "hates" guns because she's never even held one and doesn't know Jack Schitt about them?

The hippy who thinks we should all live in peace around a campfire singing "We are the world"?

The movie star who might be best known for portraying angry violent people with guns shooting every enemy?

Or the shallow minded person who believes there's a simple solution to a complex problem and by getting rid of guns all the violence on the news will disappear?

Nah. They ain't traitors. They may be ignorant, misinformed, brainwashed, unable to grasp complex subjects or just unwilling to think a subject through to it's logical conclusion.

They can yell and holler all they want, and though I may wish for a bus to come along and shut 'em up, they're still just misinformed, lazy thinking idiots and possibly cowards. But not traitors.

Now, the money grubbing, power hungry, elitist, scumbag politicians and activist judges who can actually do some damage, the media who vomits all the misinformation and turns nutjobs who kill children into household names so the next nutjob has a goal to shoot for (pun intended). Yeah, they're traitors, the politicians took an oath to abide by the COTUS and they know damn well what it says and what it means. They know exactly what the Framers meant by "Shall not be infringed", don't tell me they've never read any of the other documents, letters, essays and papers that expands on what the COTUS says.

Yeah, they're traitors.
When I said arent they traitors I was referring to the politicians who vote against the 2nd Amendment not uninformed hippies.
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:07   #32
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by umadcuzimstylin View Post
Ive always thought that was a violation of the 1st amendment! brb cant say naughty words on tv or show your body cause we have primitive puritanical morals. Im a Libertarian so I believe in freedom.
See, I'm not really thrilled with the restrictions, either. With things like TV, I think that's up to the parents to decide what's played in the house, etc.

My point, however, is that the First Amendment has be restricted and those restrictions have withstood the tests of the courts. And you don't hear anyone rallying and railing against the FCC. I don't understand why the Second should be thought of as beyond restrictions when it's historically proven that all the others can be restricted.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:40   #33
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Liberal progressives at large should be considered traitors and enemies of the Constitution.
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:58   #34
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by umadcuzimstylin View Post
Ive always thought that was a violation of the 1st amendment! brb cant say naughty words on tv or show your body cause we have primitive puritanical morals. Im a Libertarian so I believe in freedom.
So are you against the illegal detention of a US citizen who was denied his due process rights and held as an "enemy combatant" for more than three years?

Jose Padilla is a scumbag, but he's a US citizen and he deserved his day in court. I argued that position here at GT and it was mighty unpopular, but by your logic every guard working at Guantanamo at the time was a "traitor" since they subverted the Constitutional rights of an American citizen.
devildog2067 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 13:11   #35
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight610 View Post
In United States v Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment only protected military style weapons commonly used in the military and militia at that time.
Best I recall, they actually ruled that it didn't protect Miller's sawed-off shotgun because it wasn't a military weapon - not exactly the same thing. If they had ruled as you said, we wouldn't be having the assault weapon debate today. That case has never since been held to support a right to possess military small arms, and it is almost 75 years old.

However, Miller, combined with the supreme court cases in the last 7 years, could be a strating point for invalidating an assault weapon ban. Unfortunately, that is very optimistic thinking right now and, if Obama gets to appoint 1 more supreme court justice, it has no chance at all.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 02-04-2013 at 13:16..
Bren is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 14:24   #36
umadcuzimstylin
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
So are you against the illegal detention of a US citizen who was denied his due process rights and held as an "enemy combatant" for more than three years?

Jose Padilla is a scumbag, but he's a US citizen and he deserved his day in court. I argued that position here at GT and it was mighty unpopular, but by your logic every guard working at Guantanamo at the time was a "traitor" since they subverted the Constitutional rights of an American citizen.
Person calling the shots should be held accountable. Example remember bath salts? It was like ritalin that you snort and can get it from tobacco marts and such. Well all the ones around me got raided and all the minimum wage employees got arrested for just doing there job and now face sentences of decades; they are not the ones calling the shots and should not be punished.
umadcuzimstylin is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 14:31   #37
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfdad View Post
The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty. The philosophy of liberalisim emphasizes control.


You're funny.

The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of conservatism, just as the philosophy of liberalism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of liberalism. It's just different sides of the same coin.
N4LP is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 14:54   #38
philipk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 1,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by N4LP View Post


You're funny.

The philosophy of conservatism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of conservatism, just as the philosophy of liberalism emphasizes liberty when it's convenient to the agenda of liberalism. It's just different sides of the same coin.
+1

When you understand this you can live life with a lot less stress.

You still have your values but you understand people can have different core values than you have.
__________________
Philip

G20 (OEM and Lonewolf 6" barrels), G23 (.40 + .357 SIG), G27 (.40 + .357 SIG), G35 (.40 and Lonewolf 9mm)
philipk is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 15:58   #39
turretg
Senior Member
 
turretg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here....right now.
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfdad View Post
"shall not be infringed"
Those are four words that hold a lot of weight that many like to ignore. Unfortunately.
__________________
Elvis has left the turret.

Last edited by turretg; 02-04-2013 at 15:59..
turretg is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 16:14   #40
Glock_Convert
Senior Member
 
Glock_Convert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by umadcuzimstylin View Post
I can understand accidentally going against the Constitution but intentionally going against the Constitution makes you a traitor.
Only if you push for change by unconstitutional means. As far as I am concerned, the only legal means by which our gun rights can be reduced is by a constitution amendment to change or rescind the second. The gun grabbers know that would never fly, so they stoop to sneaky illegal means. THAT is treason.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
Glock_Convert is online now  
Old 02-04-2013, 16:30   #41
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by turretg View Post
Those are four words that hold a lot of weight that many like to ignore. Unfortunately.
Why do those four words carry more weight than:
"Congress shall make no law"

and yet:
Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute

Everyone on the gun-rights side likes the idea that "The Second Amendment protects all the others", but I don't recall an armed uprising when the FCC was established. Am I wrong? Did I miss it?
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb

Last edited by WarCry; 02-04-2013 at 16:30..
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 17:07   #42
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,066


Hating the Second Ammendment makes you no more of a traitor than those who hate the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, for example. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 17:43   #43
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by HollowHead View Post
Hating the Second Ammendment makes you no more of a traitor than those who hate the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, for example. HH
Sure it does

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 02-04-2013 at 17:44..
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 17:44   #44
Jason D
Silver Membership
INFRINGED!
 
Jason D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Mivonks, MI
Posts: 41,423
When you take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, then wipe your ass with it. You are a damn traitor and should be treated as such.
__________________
An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 1. 10/27/1787
Jason D is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:18   #45
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,066


Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Sure it does
How so? Saying any amendment is "less important" than any other is just what the left wants. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:21   #46
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 506
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by turretg
Those are four words that hold a lot of weight that many like to ignore. Unfortunately.
Why do those four words carry more weight than:
"Congress shall make no law"

and yet:
Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute

Everyone on the gun-rights side likes the idea that "The Second Amendment protects all the others", but I don't recall an armed uprising when the FCC was established. Am I wrong? Did I miss it?


Just because they did it does not make it legal. The "because I did something illegal and got away with it, means I don't have to follow any of the laws." is seriously flawed.
IhRedrider is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:24   #47
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by HollowHead View Post
How so? Saying any amendment is "less important" than any other is just what the left wants. HH
The left is seeking to deprive people of natural rights.
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:34   #48
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by HollowHead View Post
How so? Saying any amendment is "less important" than any other is just what the left wants. HH
The left is seeking to deprive people of natural rights.
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:36   #49
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
Just because they did it does not make it legal. The "because I did something illegal and got away with it, means I don't have to follow any of the laws." is seriously flawed.
You're absolutely right.

Repeated cases in the Supreme Court where they've not struck down the idea of the FCC is what makes it legal.

Remember that whole 3-branches thing?

Legislative makes laws
Executive enforces laws
Judicial interprets and applies laws

Regardless of whether you agree or not, the Supreme Court has - time, and time, and time again - stated that there are and can be restrictions on any of the Bill of Rights. To assume the Second carries more weight that any of the others is, quite simply, absurd.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:39   #50
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The left is seeking to deprive people of natural rights.

The 16th is less important than the 2nd.

The 2nd is less important than the 16th.



Both are amendments to the Constitution. Both carry the same weight of law. If you agree with the first statement, then you are no better than those who agree with the second.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 874
210 Members
664 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42