• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

Lets Apply your definition to the 2nd and see where the logic falls..


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


A direct ruled milita, being neccessary to the security of a free state.......


wait, even with your definition applies, it still does not change the fact that the right of the people shall not be infringed....


So any of your definitions applied, does not change the fact that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms...


Your point is moot.
 
the makeout hobo said:
The site you posted said all definitions were in use in colonial times. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Click to expand...

What are you even trying to argue here? That the Bill of Rights had some strange Amendment that actually empowered the Federal government?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Lets Apply your definition to the 2nd and see where the logic falls..


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


A direct ruled milita, being neccessary to the security of a free state.......


wait, even with your definition applies, it still does not change the fact that the right of the people shall not be infringed....


So any of your definitions applied, does not change the fact that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms...


Your point is moot.
Click to expand...

So you're now saying "it doesn't matter what the first half says anyways", am i right? Just so I don't end up misrepresenting you.
 
the makeout hobo said:
So you're now saying "it doesn't matter what the first half says anyways", am i right? Just so I don't end up misrepresenting you.
Click to expand...




Not in context of the 2nd part.


It could read, "A pink Militia that is controlled by the lizard people, being necessary to the security of ring dings, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



And it still wouldn't change the fact that the natural right regarding gun ownership is recognized.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
That does not follow and is illogical, you made the scared girly screed about the poor children being accidentally shot when I have shown you its rare.
Click to expand...

Not that rare. I gave you some numbers.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, on average, one child every three days died in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005.[116]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States]Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You gave nothing.



FAIL!

As I demonstrated there were less than 20 on average per year. So are you saying there are 6 in other developing countries?


Oh wait, your moving goal posts now from accidental shootings to gangs and violence...... Most of those shootings are in the most restrictive areas when it comes to gun control. Perhaps we should let the good guys arm themselves against these savages.... Without trigger locks. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Do you even read what is put before you?

yeah, I call bull**** on this. So I discount everything else in this paragraph unless you have any coorboratng evidence.
Click to expand...

Feel free to show it inaccurate, as well as the statistics I put above. But do understand that you yelling FAIL and calling Bull **** is not equal to you actually making a case or responding to the argument before you.






Hoplophobic response. 2 big dogs will cost a person several thousands of dollars a year first off, 2nd does he have room and time to take care of these pets? Training. You are going to let a couple "guard dogs" have the run of the house without training?


Ignorane does not even begin to cover your thought proccess here boo. :lamo
Click to expand...

I've been poor and always had a dog or three. And no one comes into my house. But you're welcome to try. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Not that rare. I gave you some numbers.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, on average, one child every three days died in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005.[116]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You gave nothing.
Click to expand...



How many childeren were killed accidentally last year?



Do you even read what is put before you?
Click to expand...


When its you? I usually skim, you are a boring lot.



Feel free to show it inaccurate, as well as the statistics I put above. But do understand that you yelling FAIL and calling Bull **** is not equal to you actually making a case or responding to the argument before you.
Click to expand...


I've shown you statistics, your failure is all yours.



I've been poor and always had a dog or three. And no one comes into my house. But you're welcome to try. ;)
Click to expand...




In police work they call this a clue...


ITS BECAUSE YOUR ****ING POOR NO ONE COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE!!!!



:lamo
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How many childeren were killed accidentally last year?






When its you? I usually skim, you are a boring lot.






I've shown you statistics, your failure is all yours.








In police work they call this a clue...


ITS BECAUSE YOUR ****ING POOR NO ONE COMES INTO YOUR HOUSE!!!!



:lamo
Click to expand...

I looked backed, you linked nothing with statistics. You're welcome to support your claim. And frankly, being in police work doesn't make you an expert on national statistics, particular if your view is skewed by a political view.

No, people I like and trust and come over, but even though I have rarely ever locked a door, no one has ever even tried to rob me, no matter where I have lived (from Atlanta to Rural Iowa).
 
Boo Radley said:
I looked backed, you linked nothing with statistics. You're welcome to support your claim. And frankly, being in police work doesn't make you an expert on national statistics, particular if your view is skewed by a political view.

No, people I like and trust and come over, but even though I have rarely ever locked a door, no one has ever even tried to rob me, no matter where I have lived (from Atlanta to Rural Iowa).
Click to expand...




I'm not wasting much time on someone known for not providing links, but you can start here:

GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I'm not wasting much time on someone known for not providing links, but you can start here:

GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004)
Click to expand...

Good to see you picked a site that wouldn't be suspected at all of playing with the numbers. :lol:

But why would you think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports different numbers? Or are you suggesting trigger locks worked?
 
Boo Radley said:
Good to see you picked a site that wouldn't be suspected at all of playing with the numbers. :lol:

But why would you think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports different numbers? Or are you suggesting trigger locks worked?
Click to expand...



Each note is footnoted and sourced. FAIL


Now, how many childeren died last here from firearms accidents. 2nd request.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Each note is footnoted and sourced. FAIL


Now, how many childeren died last here from firearms accidents. 2nd request.
Click to expand...

Back up JR, I didn't say it was wrong, I asked you to explain the difference.

However, notice what is sourced:

What are the statistics about young people and firearm deaths and injuries?
The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

* In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:Four teen boys
o 214 unintentional
o 1,078 suicides
o 1,990 homicides
o 83 for which the intent could not be determined
o 20 due to legal intervention
* Of the total firearms-related deaths:
o 73 were of children under five years old
o 416 were children 5-14 years old
o 2,896 were 15-19 years old

For more information: Child Trends DataBank has available these teen homicide, suicide and firearm death statistics.

In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children and young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. These statistics include suicide attempts and both intentional and accidental shootings [2].

Gun Safety for Kids and Youth: Your Child: University of Michigan Health System

Again, using the same source but saying something different. Can you explain?
 
So you got 214? Is that your final number hero?


Out of 73 million childeren?


Like i said a kid is more likely to drown in a bucket of water.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you got 214? Is that your final number hero?


Out of 73 million childeren?


Like i said a kid is more likely to drown in a bucket of water.
Click to expand...

And like I said, show me the chances of a home invasion. I suspect it is even less likely.

BTW, you didn't answer the question. I'm just saying. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
What's unreasonable about a waiting period? I don't see that one. I slows down any spur of the moment mental stress type problem. That happens btw.

What's reasonable about an automatic weapon? I don't see it.

I think it is reasonable for law enforcement to be better armed than criminals. Even those who just decided on a certain day to rob a bank.

The rest don't seem to much a problem to me.
Click to expand...

people who would run out and buy a gun are not in the heat of passion anymore. HOwever, people have been killed by waiting periods.

That you don't see it with automatic weapons is hardly grounds to deny one large group of civilians the right to own something that most cities and local governments provide other civilians for self defensive use.

You cannot stop criminals from being better armed than cops since any and all weapons up to nukes are available on the black market and "criminal" can mean rogue states or warlords
 
the makeout hobo said:
Do you think registration is reasonable?
Click to expand...

absolutely not

1) it has no real use in crime control-hawaii which is an island has had such registration and I recall several studies showing that no or almost no crimes were solved by it

2) it is a tool to facilitate confiscation

3) people who cannot legally own firearms are constitutionally exempt from being punished for failure to register under the 5th amendment

4) it wastes law enforcement resources and tax dollars
 
Because, clearly, if Americans go to Tea Party rallies with guns they change from amicable Americans with a knack for shooting cans to violent psychopaths with a taste for the blood of women and minorities.

How do I know this? Well, I read it in the New York Times. And no one would bother lying in the New York Times. They print on newspaper. You can't lie on newspaper.
 
TurtleDude said:
people who would run out and buy a gun are not in the heat of passion anymore. HOwever, people have been killed by waiting periods.

That you don't see it with automatic weapons is hardly grounds to deny one large group of civilians the right to own something that most cities and local governments provide other civilians for self defensive use.

You cannot stop criminals from being better armed than cops since any and all weapons up to nukes are available on the black market and "criminal" can mean rogue states or warlords
Click to expand...

Really? And yet, hasn't it happened before where someone got angry, went right out and bought a gun, and acted? You're actually talking about something different than I am. Not passion, but anger. Sometimes a few days to settle down isn't much to ask. And it doesn't really hurt anyone to wait, does it? If so, exactly how?

As for automatic weapons, I don't see anyone with a nuke or a tank either, and I see no problem denying them to people. Weapons area tool, nothing more. So what is the purpose of the tool, an automatic weapon? Therein lies the reason I have no trouble seeing them banned.

And while you are correct that criminals may well still get better weapons, there's no reason to make it easier for them. Let them work at it. ;)
 
the makeout hobo said:
Do you think registration is reasonable?
Click to expand...
Registration is a precondition to the right not inherent to same.

It serves no compelling state interest, and is not the least restrictive means to serve said interest (as no interest exists)

Therefore, registration does not pass a test of strict scrutiny, and therefore is an unallowable infringement of the right to arms.

Unallowable infringements are not reasonable.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not that rare. I gave you some numbers.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, on average, one child every three days died in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005.
Click to expand...
~120/ year, over a population of over 300,000,000, isn't rare?

I'd bet more poeple die from accidentally swallowing toothpaste.
 
the makeout hobo said:
So you're now saying "it doesn't matter what the first half says anyways", am i right? Just so I don't end up misrepresenting you.
Click to expand...
What the frst half says does matter.
It doesn't, however, create a requirement that for the 2nd to protect the right, the right must be exercised within the context of a militia setting.
 
Boo Radley said:
Really? And yet, hasn't it happened before where someone got angry, went right out and bought a gun, and acted?
Click to expand...
This would be 1st degree murder, which, my defintion, is not an act of passion.


You're actually talking about something different than I am. Not passion, but anger. Sometimes a few days to settle down isn't much to ask. And it doesn't really hurt anyone to wait, does it? If so, exactly how?
Click to expand...
A right delayed is a right denied.

As for automatic weapons, I don't see anyone with a nuke or a tank either, and I see no problem denying them to people.
Click to expand...
That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.

And, as a note, I DO see people with tanks and other privately-owned armored vehicles.
 
Goobieman said:
This would be 1st degree murder, which, my defintion, is not an act of passion.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree that it would be murder. Not arguing it's an act of passion. But that we do tend to calm down when we have time to think.

A right delayed is a right denied.
Click to expand...

Nice catch phrase, but in this case not really accurate.

That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.

And, as a note, I DO see people with tanks and other privately-owned armored vehicles.
Click to expand...

What will you use one on? Duck? Quail? Deer? Bear?

And tank is more then armored btw. It has weapons. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't disagree that it would be murder. Not arguing it's an act of passion. But that we do tend to calm down when we have time to think.
Click to expand...
Well heck -- we can delay the exercise any number of rights on those grounds!
I'm sorry -- you have to wait 90 days to have an abortion, just to make sure you aren't acting rashly.

Nice catch phrase, but in this case not really accurate.
Click to expand...
If it is accurate at all, then it is accurate every time a right is delayed.
You disagree with Dr. King?

What will you use one on? Duck? Quail? Deer? Bear?
Click to expand...
False premise as The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

And tank is more then armored btw. It has weapons.
Click to expand...
Doesnt change the fact that there are many tanks in private hands.

And I note you side-stepped:

That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom