Go to hell whitlock.

[A Salt Weapon]

Yes I am a noob here, but after hearing that whitlock just blamed Belcher and his girlfriends death on lack of more restrictive gun laws.
You are a true classless piece of shit, using this incident to push your anti-bill of rights agenda, **** you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[FAX]

I'll bet the Sasquatches would love to see the American people helplessly unarmed. They would come down from the mountains and out of the forests and emerge from their caves in droves. It would be a total Sasquatch free-for-all. Before long, there would be little pieces of Marxist gun-haters strewn everywhere and all our marshmallows in all our stores in all our cities and towns would be stolen which means you can forget about making smores while singing your little, sissy campfire songs.

FAX

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Ha! No, I'm pretty sure that "literally" and the quotes were "literally" wrong.

I deleted that right after I posted it. I've very sick with allergies the past 3-4 days and it has left my head in a bit of a fog at times. Blond moment duly acknowledged.

[GoChargers]

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29.

[saphojunkie]

I totally wrote empirical when I meant Imperial.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by FAX

I'll bet the Sasquatches would love to see the American people helplessly unarmed. They would come down from the mountains and out of the forests and emerge from their caves in droves. It would be a total Sasquatch free-for-all. Before long, there would be little pieces of Marxist gun-haters strewn everywhere and all our marshmallows in all our stores in all our cities and towns would be stolen which means you can forget about making smores while singing your little, sissy campfire songs.

FAX

Bullshit. We trap them with Jack Links.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29.

Proof positive that our founding fathers weren't real happy that Sasquatches were freaking everywhere.

FAX

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

I deleted that right after I posted it. I've very sick with allergies the past 3-4 days and it has left my head in a bit of a fog at times. Blond moment duly acknowledged.

Oh no - you were right. I ninja-edited.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Oh no - you were right. I ninja-edited.

Quit confusing the sick guy. It's not nice.

[GoChargers]

Hamilton states that a federally regulated militia will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively regulated militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. This force will be further complemented by the "people at large," who can "stand ready with arms to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29.

That too concerns the militia. However, there is one thing that people tend to overlook from those days. Guns were integrated in their lives. It was protection, it was food. There were no walmarts, no dollar stores, and no food stamps. A person without a hunting rifle or personal protection was unheard of.

People tend to look for the specifics in the constitution, but they are not there. The reason is that document was designed to change with the times. That is the brilliance of the US constitution. Yes this is a valid argument, but not a constitutional one. The question should be: have the times changed so much from then that we no longer need firearms? That is what we should be focused on.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29.

1. The "population at large" meant white men, not blacks or Indians or anyone else they should be protected against.

2. There was a little under 4 million people in the first US census. 4 million for the whole of America. You think maybe having a gun was slightly more vital back then, when the nearest neighbor was 20 miles away sometimes?

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decenni...s/1790b-02.pdf

3. He still wants them "properly" armed and equipped, and I think that properly arming the population at large means not arming the wrong members of the population.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

Alexander Hamilton didn't write for wikipedia. Use the original source and make your own argument.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

That too concerns the militia. However, there is one thing that people tend to overlook from those days. Guns were integrated in their lives. It was protection, it was food. There were no walmarts, no dollar stores, and no food stamps. A person without a hunting rifle or personal protection was unheard of.

People tend to look for the specifics in the constitution, but they are not there. The reason is that document was designed to change with the times. That is the brilliance of the US constitution. Yes this is a valid argument, but not a constitutional one. The question should be: have the times changed so much from then that we no longer need firearms? That is what we should be focused on.

The whole living breathing document thing. Which, while accurate, is also misused to think that the words that are printed take on a different meaning for different times. That is very much inaccurate. It is designed to change through AMENDMENTS. There has been no amendment passed to say that the second one is out dated. Thus, it stands on its original merits.

[GoChargers]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

That too concerns the militia. However, there is one thing that people tend to overlook from those days. Guns were integrated in their lives. It was protection, it was food. There were no walmarts, no dollar stores, and no food stamps. A person without a hunting rifle or personal protection was unheard of.

People tend to look for the specifics in the constitution, but they are not there. The reason is that document was designed to change with the times. That is the brilliance of the US constitution. Yes this is a valid argument, but not a constitutional one. The question should be: have the times changed so much from then that we no longer need firearms? That is what we should be focused on.

The Constitution was clearly not designed to change with the times without the ratification of an amendment, unless you also think that other basic rights such as freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and due process will become passe these days.... and that's not even considering the constitutional limits on our government that are ignored nowadays to our peril as a nation.

Here's an idea: how about you and your fellow gun-grabbers try to get an amendment ratified to repeal the Second Amendment? Something tells me you won't get overwhelming support for that one.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

The whole living breathing document thing. Which, while accurate, is also misused to think that the words that are printed take on a different meaning for different times. That is very much inaccurate. It is designed to change through AMENDMENTS. There has been no amendment passed to say that the second one is out dated. Thus, it stands on its original merits.

I agree. It should stand. Please tell me where in the 2nd amendment where it mentions an individuals right to possess weapons. The amendment is concerning the militia.