Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I'm sure this will give Kev a hard on
Author Message
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
 
ccs178 Wrote:At what point did I say guns should be banned? All I said was that I never felt the need to carry weapons when I've made trips to Harlem. You'd be wise to check yourself before you go off half-cocked with knee-jerk reactions based on erroneous assumptions that you have made out of thin air.

Hmm, I guess after what, 2 and a half years you still have a problem me? I could care. This has nothing to do with carrying a damn assault weapon in Harlem. It has to do with whether or not a citizen can OWN an assault weapon in NYC. The issue isn't carrying a f'n AK, ccs.
02-12-2007 08:58 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
 
99Tiger Wrote:What I always find amusing is that people will claim that the framers of the Constitution didn't envision the prospect of terrorism with regards to civil rights. However, those same people refuse to consider the notion that the framers also didn't envision the prospect of someone with a collections of assault rifles with regards to gun control.

Who said the founders didn't envision terrorism, or at least, problems with Muslims? Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates and their extortion of commercial shipping lanes throughout the Mediterranean? However, they apparently did NOT envision a time when our own f'n news media would actively work against any success we have at defending this country. Why? Well, at the time, we had laws against such. Now? We can't even f'n bring Jane Fonda to trial.
02-12-2007 09:02 PM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #23
 
NIUFAN Wrote:I have never met a Libretarian who supports gun control. Please explain!?!?

Then clearly you've only met people who walk the straight party line in all cases.

It's a party of principle, and I agree in principle with the right to bear arms... to a certain degree. Do you think people should be able to tote around bazookas? RPGs? There are extreme libertarians (anarchists, more like) who think that every person should be able to have their own nuke. As with all things in life, no one rule applies perfectly to all situations. I am overwhelming libertarian, but also apply reasonable judgement to my views. If you were a Democrat w/o reasonable judgement, we'd be engaging in communism. If you a Republican w/o reasonable judgement, we'd be engaging in a religious state.
02-12-2007 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Then clearly you've only met people who walk the straight party line in all cases.

GTS, unlike Republicans and Democrats, Libertarian is also a philosophy. It is unlike most parties in that way. I am not a Libertarian by party, but I would be considered a Libertarian by philosophy. Gun control laws are anti-2nd amendment much like "Free Speech" zones, set up near the Democratic National Convention in '04, and CFR were to the 1st amendment.

Also, it's come out that Rudy apparently thinks the 2nd amendment is about hunting. This, IMO, shows that he has a lack of understanding of the US Constitution. It's sad, because my highest level is Bachelors and his is a law degree.
02-12-2007 09:28 PM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #25
 
That's not what I had heard. From what I heard internally, he realized the differences in need for somebody in, say, NYC and South Carolina. I'll find out what his exact policy is on this soon, but I am meeting him in person later this month.
02-12-2007 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
 
But like I said, I like Rudy. He doesn't deviate from his convictions. I like that in a man. It's becoming rarer and rarer in these days. "I" just couldn't vote for him and I couldn't vote for McCain either. Sanford? If he were to run, he'd have my support 100%.
02-12-2007 09:31 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:That's not what I had heard. From what I heard internally, he realized the differences in need for somebody in, say, NYC and South Carolina. I'll find out what his exact policy is on this soon, but I am meeting him in person later this month.


I didn't realize the 2nd Amendment was state-specific.
02-12-2007 09:31 PM
Quote this message in a reply
99Tiger Offline
I got tiger blood, man.
*

Posts: 15,391
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 312
I Root For: football wins
Location: Orange County, CA

Crappies
Post: #28
 
RebelKev Wrote:
99Tiger Wrote:What I always find amusing is that people will claim that the framers of the Constitution didn't envision the prospect of terrorism with regards to civil rights. However, those same people refuse to consider the notion that the framers also didn't envision the prospect of someone with a collections of assault rifles with regards to gun control.

Who said the founders didn't envision terrorism, or at least, problems with Muslims? Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates and their extortion of commercial shipping lanes throughout the Mediterranean? However, they apparently did NOT envision a time when our own f'n news media would actively work against any success we have at defending this country. Why? Well, at the time, we had laws against such. Now? We can't even f'n bring Jane Fonda to trial.

I have heard the argument used to try to justify harsher treatment of Muslims in America, especially non-US born Muslims. And before some wiseass points it out, yes, that also appeared on "24"...but I have heard it used in many other contexts.

I haven't heard too many public figures say this aloud...just discussions with people spouting their own ideas about how to better manage the war against terror.

As far as the news media, they think way too highly of themselves and that everyone should have access to everything and that's simply not true. You put a camera in their face or a notepad in their hands and they suddenly develop an overinflated ego and outrageous level or self-importance when they're really no more qualified to analyze situations than the average Joe.
02-12-2007 10:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanatical Offline
lost in dreams of hops & barley
*

Posts: 4,180
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 24
I Root For: South Park Cows
Location: Luh-ville
Post: #29
 
I just read in a Time today that Guliani was questioned on gun control and said something to the effect of: (paraphrasing) "I supported gun control in a city like New York. Gun control for a city is different than that of a suburban or rural area."

Big Rudy has lately become a master of being on both sides of an issue.
02-12-2007 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #30
 
Fanatical Wrote:I just read in a Time today that Guliani was questioned on gun control and said something to the effect of: (paraphrasing) "I supported gun control in a city like New York. Gun control for a city is different than that of a suburban or rural area."

Big Rudy has lately become a master of being on both sides of an issue.

That's a reasonable statement. You going to be hunting for a 20-pt buck in the Bronx?
02-12-2007 11:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #31
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:That's a reasonable statement. You going to be hunting for a 20-pt buck in the Bronx?

I think the right question would be, "Are there people in the Bronx that hunt deer out in the country?".

Sorry GTS, but that law prohibited people from owning weapons. No, they aren't going to be hunting in the Bronx, but yes, they DO go hunting outside of the city.
02-12-2007 11:42 PM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #32
 
RebelKev Wrote:
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:That's a reasonable statement. You going to be hunting for a 20-pt buck in the Bronx?

I think the right question would be, "Are there people in the Bronx that hunt deer out in the country?".

Sorry GTS, but that law prohibited people from owning weapons. No, they aren't going to be hunting in the Bronx, but yes, they DO go hunting outside of the city.

Let me phrase it more clearly.......

Are there people in the Bronx that hunt for deer with a M16?
Are there people ANYWHERE that hunt for deer with a M16?
02-12-2007 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Let me phrase it more clearly.......

Are there people in the Bronx that hunt for deer with a M16?
Are there people ANYWHERE that hunt for deer with a M16?

M-16 is too low of a caliber. HOWEVER, I have harvested no less than 10 deer with a WWII-Era M-1 Carbine. What's your point? You're falling into the Rudy mold. The 2nd amendment had not a DAMN thing to do with hunting.
02-12-2007 11:47 PM
Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #34
 
RebelKev Wrote:
99Tiger Wrote:What I always find amusing is that people will claim that the framers of the Constitution didn't envision the prospect of terrorism with regards to civil rights. However, those same people refuse to consider the notion that the framers also didn't envision the prospect of someone with a collections of assault rifles with regards to gun control.

Who said the founders didn't envision terrorism, or at least, problems with Muslims? Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates and their extortion of commercial shipping lanes throughout the Mediterranean? However, they apparently did NOT envision a time when our own f'n news media would actively work against any success we have at defending this country. Why? Well, at the time, we had laws against such. Now? We can't even f'n bring Jane Fonda to trial.

Wow, you totally missed his point. His point was that some of the same people who argue that the framer's conception of habeas corpus couldn't have accounted for 9/11 and by that logic, Habeas can be ignored -- also argue that they had the insight to imagine that people would run around spraying shopping malls with automatic gunfire, and by that logic, the 2nd amendment is infallible.

I'm not saying that you were one of these... have no idea how you feel about the decision to suspend habeas for terror suspects. Just saying that his argument was that you can't pick and choose which elements of the constitution to apply "strict constructionism" too.

Its a fair point, and deserves to be answered on its merits.
02-13-2007 12:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #35
 
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but with hedging against the potential abuses of government power.

Which is odd then, that some people who are ardent 2nd amendment supporters seem to look the other way while the Bush administration moves to grab unprecedented powers for the executive branch (NSA wiretapping, the Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus for subjects they deem fit -- which by nature means that habeas corpus as a right no longer exists at all, etc). The unsettling truth, and profound irony, is that the executive branch has little to no record of ever relinquishing power that it amasses over time. Meaning that even if Bush is "your guy" you are essentially bequeathing a massive amount of unchecked executive power to Hillary or Obama or whoever (potentially very liberal tyrannically anti-gun politician) may be coming down the road.

If conservatives spent half as much time working to stop the actions which the second amendment was amended to check (abuses of government power) as they do the second amendment itself, they may find that they have less to fear from either when a democratic administration eventually rolls around in the future.
02-13-2007 12:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #36
 
OUGwave Wrote:The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but with hedging against the potential abuses of government power.

Name some.
02-13-2007 12:33 AM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #37
 
RebelKev Wrote:
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Let me phrase it more clearly.......

Are there people in the Bronx that hunt for deer with a M16?
Are there people ANYWHERE that hunt for deer with a M16?

M-16 is too low of a caliber. HOWEVER, I have harvested no less than 10 deer with a WWII-Era M-1 Carbine. What's your point? You're falling into the Rudy mold. The 2nd amendment had not a DAMN thing to do with hunting.

Let me get straight to the point.

Should any civilian be allowed to own a .50 caliber assault rifle ... keeping in mind of course this is already banned in several states.

If your answer is yes, should any civilian also be allowed to own a bazooka? Mortar? RPG?

Where is the line drawn?
02-13-2007 12:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Let me get straight to the point.

Should any civilian be allowed to own a .50 caliber assault rifle ... keeping in mind of course this is already banned in several states.

If your answer is yes, should any civilian also be allowed to own a bazooka? Mortar? RPG?

Where is the line drawn?

Now we're getting a bit ridicurous.
02-13-2007 12:54 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #39
 
BTW, there are .50 cals out there. They are generally muzzle-loaders. I don't see a problem. You do realize a .45 isn't called that because it's just a cool name, don't you? It's a f'n .45 caliber. You wanna see those banned?

Hell, I know, let's give everyone BB guns. THAT'LL protect the people in the bad areas of Spartanburg.
02-13-2007 12:56 AM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #40
 
RebelKev Wrote:
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Let me get straight to the point.

Should any civilian be allowed to own a .50 caliber assault rifle ... keeping in mind of course this is already banned in several states.

If your answer is yes, should any civilian also be allowed to own a bazooka? Mortar? RPG?

Where is the line drawn?

Now we're getting a bit ridicurous.

It's a reasonable question. Where do you draw the line? What amount of firepower is too unreasonable for a civilian to have?
02-13-2007 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.