Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Snowman90 wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

You're taking the thrill out of the hunt. The beauty in death man.

There is too a thrill! I had to cross three lanes last time to hit one!

You should play orc's. Lol.

Alpharius, you're a cruel man!

Alpharius wrote:guns...

They could play with MY gun.

Calm down, Sweetness, calm down.

Thats my Tek-9 getting riled...he doesn't like ignorance or generalization or stereotyping.

Guns are tools of death. They are a terrible invention, it would have been better if they were never invented.

But they save my ass too many times than I can count, and I probably would be dead if they weren't invented.

Guns: They kill thou who would kill you.

Snowman90 wrote:

Alpharius wrote:guns...

<insert image here>

They could play with MY gun.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=597

I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones

The fact that you weren't able to dismiss that offhand is indicative of a very poor grasp on reality, no matter what side of the pond.

You dont have to have a license to own an automatic weapon IIRC, thats just an urban legend. You do however have to pay i think 200 dollars for an extensive background check from some organization as well as get a written request signed by the chief of police for your county. All in all it takes about 2-3 months

Mostly correct. You actually have to have a stamp. An actual stamp. It's a $200 stamp, so instead of 42cents, it actually says $200 on it. You also have to have paperwork, and notify the Feds every time you change address.

It's a bit ridiculous.

So, anyway, I don't want do derail the possibility of more of these bewb pictures getting posted, because no matter how fake they are, fake bewbs fool my happy receptors every time, but...

Why guns?

Many reasons...

1) There is actually legal precedent in the US (and were a precedent based system, unlike the UK), that says the police have no legal responsibility to protect American citizens from harm. If you're in danger and the cops can't get there in time, they're not liable. To set that precedent, and also to deny the right to own weapons for defense is, in my eyes, immoral. "We're not required to protect you, and you're not allowed."

2) There's no practical use to banning them, and it's basically impossible. There are millions of guns in the US. There's no way to go get them all. Even if they did get rid of them all, how well does banning things really work in the end anyway? War on drugs? Why bother?

3) I think that government should constantly be practicing solving problems without taking people's freedom's away. It's odd to be questioned by a Brit about our crazy 2nd Amendment, when the Brits don't even have a 1st. There's no right to free speech in the UK... Europe is full of countries that solve social problems by stripping people's rights, taking their money, and controlling their lives. This is not progress, nor is it wisdom. Being former monarchies, the European nations don't have a real instinct for individual liberties, the way we do in the US. It's this spirit of individualism that led to the American ascension, and its the loss of this spirit, and the leftward slide of America back towards Europe, that is causing our current decline.

I personally own about two dozen guns. I enjoy shooting them, but I don't find them sexually arousing. I enjoy the process of training with them, it's physically and mentally demanding, and improving your skills is rewarding. I like knowing that I have the means to defend my home against an intruder, and when the lunatics running the world eventually collapse our society, I'll have plenty of weapons to hold of the zombie hordes.

That's all, back to the bewbs.

Chongara wrote:

Snowman90 wrote:

Alpharius wrote:guns...

<insert image here>

They could play with MY gun.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=597

I laughed at that comic. What guy wouldn't drool over a perfect woman, in skimpy clothes, I mean seriously?

Snowman90 wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Snowman90 wrote:

Alpharius wrote:guns...

<insert image here>

They could play with MY gun.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=597

I laughed at that comic. What guy wouldn't drool over a perfect woman, in skimpy clothes, I mean seriously?

Without even thinking about it at least five different answers came to mind instantly. See if you can guess three.

I have an elephant rifle in the basement, and a Cavalry sword!

Tilean Bastard wrote:I have an elephant rifle in the basement, and a Cavalry sword!

A sword is also an extra penis good for killing things. They're just older and don't work as well anymore.

Chongara wrote:

Snowman90 wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Snowman90 wrote:

Alpharius wrote:guns...

<insert image here>

They could play with MY gun.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=597

I laughed at that comic. What guy wouldn't drool over a perfect woman, in skimpy clothes, I mean seriously?

Without even thinking about it at least five different answers came to mind instantly. See if you can guess three.

Gays, married men(who are so faithful they wont even look), and a little boy who things girls "have the cooties?"

Chongara wrote:

Tilean Bastard wrote:I have an elephant rifle in the basement, and a Cavalry sword!

A sword is also an extra penis good for killing things. They're just older and don't work as well anymore.

It's first and foremost our Constitutional Right.

The 2nd Amendment makes it clear. People muddle the Amendment by misunderstanding that the comma was changed from a semi-colon decades ago.

The first and last part are two separate ideas, not one separated by punctuation.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment as originally written had a semicolon in front of "the". It never said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia." The part about militia and the part of right to bear arms were two separate ideas in the same sentence.

So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

Fateweaver wrote:It's first and foremost our Constitutional Right.

Not the first, given that it isn't protected by the First Amendment, but maybe the foremost; depending on your priorities.

Fateweaver wrote:
The 2nd Amendment makes it clear. People muddle the Amendment by misunderstanding that the comma was changed from a semi-colon decades ago.

The version passed in 1791, the one held in the national archives, contains a comma.

Fateweaver wrote:
The first and last part are two separate ideas, not one separated by punctuation.

Semicolons are also used to separate independent clauses which are linked by a conjunction. An independent clause is not necessarily a self-contained idea.

Fateweaver wrote:
So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

So you only have a gun because your government permits it?

Well, seeing as how I need government approval to own a gun (legally) I guess I need the governments permission.

Maybe someday Mn will stop the permit nonsense. 3 states do it, one can only hope the other 47 will (or at least MN).

Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?

Do you see the fail logic behind this?

jp400 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?

For me at least, it would depend how long it is. I really don't have the legs to pull off anything shows above the ankles.

Sexy

jp400 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?

Do you see the fail logic behind this?

I don't get your point. You trying to say I only own something because the government says I can?

I don't believe in owning a gun illegally so I don't buy them that way. I buy my guns from dealers and shows. I need to prove I can have one.

Dude, seriously. Back the feth off. Now you are just trolling.

Why? Because they don't feel secure in their masculinity. Even the women.

Fateweaver wrote:Well, seeing as how I need government approval to own a gun (legally) I guess I need the governments permission.

Maybe someday Mn will stop the permit nonsense. 3 states do it, one can only hope the other 47 will (or at least MN).

I wouldn't mind that. I would prefer that gun issues were legislated by municipalities.

Fateweaver wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?

Do you see the fail logic behind this?

I don't get your point. You trying to say I only own something because the government says I can?

I don't believe in owning a gun illegally so I don't buy them that way. I buy my guns from dealers and shows. I need to prove I can have one.

Dude, seriously. Back the feth off. Now you are just trolling.

There you go with the troll thing again... seriously... expand your vocab.

I am simply pointing out that what you are saying is a pretty weak base point for an argument.

If you are going to argue a point, then maybe you should take a example from the following:

I own and use around 20 firearms. This number various from month to month cause I am constantly buying, selling, and trading in search for the next firearm to grace my collection.

Shooting around these parts is more a way of life and has been for longer then anyone can remember. Growing up, kids trek alongside dads and dogs deep into the mountains and Forrest's spending time together and bonding as they track and hunt various wild game. Its almost a rite of passage when a young lad shoots and kills his first white tail deer. Myself, I still have the deer Hide in the form of a nice wall hanging rug from my first deer.

Rifles and shotguns are bought and passed on from one generation to the next. I have a side by side shotgun that has been in my family for over 100 years. Though these days it spends more time hanging over my gas fireplace then out in the woods hunting fowl.

Myself, I view most older firearms almost as a fan views a fine work of art. Back in the old days each firearm was hand crafted and all the fine detail work was engraved by hand. Even with modern standards, I feel that the craftsmanship of the older style firearms is just as good if not better in some areas then the mass produced machined rifles of today. Because of this, I take great pride in buying older beat up weapons and restoring them to a more youthful appearance. I look at it is honoring and old, trusty friend.

I can see where people who have never been exposed to this way of life can have a hard time trying to grasp why us Americans have such a love for guns. All you have to base this view off of is what you see on TV, and Militia happy nutjobs like Fateweaver. All I ask is that you try to keep a more open mind.

END RANT

jp400 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?

Do you see the fail logic behind this?

I don't get your point. You trying to say I only own something because the government says I can?

I don't believe in owning a gun illegally so I don't buy them that way. I buy my guns from dealers and shows. I need to prove I can have one.

Dude, seriously. Back the feth off. Now you are just trolling.

There you go with the troll thing again... seriously... expand your vocab.

I am simply pointing out that what you are saying is a pretty weak base point for an argument.

If you are going to argue a point, then maybe you should take a example from the following:

I own and use around 20 firearms. This number various from month to month cause I am constantly buying, selling, and trading in search for the next firearm to grace my collection.

Shooting around these parts is more a way of life and has been for longer then anyone can remember. Growing up, kids trek alongside dads and dogs deep into the mountains and Forrest's spending time together and bonding as they track and hunt various wild game. Its almost a rite of passage when a young lad shoots and kills his first white tail deer. Myself, I still have the deer Hide in the form of a nice wall hanging rug from my first deer.

Rifles and shotguns are bought and passed on from one generation to the next. I have a side by side shotgun that has been in my family for over 100 years. Though these days it spends more time hanging over my gas fireplace then out in the woods hunting fowl.

Myself, I view most older firearms almost as a fan views a fine work of art. Back in the old days each firearm was hand crafted and all the fine detail work was engraved by hand. Even with modern standards, I feel that the craftsmanship of the older style firearms is just as good if not better in some areas then the mass produced machined rifles of today. Because of this, I take great pride in buying older beat up weapons and restoring them to a more youthful appearance. I look at it is honoring and old, trusty friend.

I can see where people who have never been exposed to this way of life can have a hard time trying to grasp why us Americans have such a love for guns. All you have to base this view off of is what you see on TV, and Militia happy nutjobs like Fateweaver. All I ask is that you try to keep a more open mind.

END RANT

I could have copy/pasted that and a certain troll would still attack me. That is why he is on ignore. My ignore list is going to get larger than the dakka user base because apparently I NEVER know what I'm saying.

Again, this is derailing the thread and I refuse a vacation again. I'm done with you.

Fateweaver wrote:It's first and foremost our Constitutional Right.

The 2nd Amendment makes it clear. People muddle the Amendment by misunderstanding that the comma was changed from a semi-colon decades ago.

The first and last part are two separate ideas, not one separated by punctuation.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment as originally written had a semicolon in front of "the". It never said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia." The part about militia and the part of right to bear arms were two separate ideas in the same sentence.

So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.

Two points:
First, your view mimics the DC v Heller ruling which was groundbreaking in that it is not the traditional way the Constitution had been read prior.
You really should include the full text of the 2nd amendment when you quote it, it's really quite short: "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." If there were two separate ideas here then there would be two separate amendments. There's only one because the two are at the very least complimentary. The amendment has historically been read to be one sentence, you know, the way it was actually written.

Second, it's tenuous to say a right is granted by the second amendment. Read it again: "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." It's more of a limitation on governmental power (originally federal then expanded to cover the states with the 14th amendment). This is an important distinction. Many countries have constitutions which explicitly grant rights (that is, they actually say "people have a right to x"). The US Constitution explicitly limits governmental power rather than granting an absolute right to its citizens (the "shall not be infringed" part). It's really quite interesting as a constitution in that it presupposes a "right of the people" which exists outside of itself, though never actually defines what the right is, but rather how the government may act in relation to it.

Either way I defend it veraciously against people wanting to take my guns away.

Anti-gun people make it sound as if you need to be a part of a militia to own a gun, when that's not true at all.

Read my sig. The government requiring me to get permission from them to own a gun is infringement.

Fateweaver wrote:
I could have copy/pasted that and a certain troll would still attack me. That is why he is on ignore. My ignore list is going to get larger than the dakka user base because apparently I NEVER know what I'm saying.

Again, this is derailing the thread and I refuse a vacation again. I'm done with you.

Dude, Get over yourself already.

And you didn't copy paste that... instead of thinking your arguement through and responding in a logical and well though out manner, you posted hasty four letter words and tried to pull out the victem card... again.

Riddle me this:
Which is more likely the truth... that all those people on your "soon to be huge" ignore list are just all out to get you and came together to conspire against you for no reason at all... or that by the way you carry yourself and are acting, that YOU are causeing the problems here on the forums.

Fateweaver wrote:Either way I defend it veraciously against people wanting to take my guns away.

Anti-gun people make it sound as if you need to be a part of a militia to own a gun, when that's not true at all.

Read my sig. The government requiring me to get permission from them to own a gun is infringement.

I'm actually pretty pro-gun even though I generally consider myself a liberal. You don't need to be part of a militia to own a gun, however the government can regulate gun use outside of state run militia's with more ease (this is a condensed answer, it's really quite complicated).

You may call it infringement, but you are, historically at least, just plain wrong. That's a little strong I guess, maybe it's just best to say that the vast majority of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, and those who were drafting the Constitution, seem to disagree with your viewpoint. Until the 14th amendment states were free to limit gun ownership how they chose; it wasn't quite the enshrined right we Americans worship today.

Even stranger, if you were to be a true textualist then the 2nd amendment would cover all arms, not just guns. While I wouldn't mind owning a tank, I don't want my neighbor to have a fully armed one. The 2nd amendment never specifies guns, just arms.

I won't even begin to bring up the commerce clause (or hell, even the necessary and proper clause. I'm on vacation til June 1st and really don't want to be thinking of the law.

I'm sure the cost would prohibit most from owning a tank.

Not many have 10's of millions of dollars/pounds laying around for a used/new Abrams.

You may call it infringement, but you are, historically at least, just plain wrong.

No question, the government has empowered itself to "infringe" on gun rights for some time. The NFA of 1934 is just one example of them deciding they could violate the Constitution.

But, just because they did it, and have been doing it, that doesn't mean they're right.

Take note of how they did it. It's the same stamp I mentioned earlier. They knew it wasn't legal to ban the sale of guns, so they decided that certain guns needed a special tax stamp to be sold, and then they just wouldn't actually sell any of the stamps.

It's the same thing they did to ban pot, actually.

So, if your arguments were as ironclad as your tone suggests, then why did the government feel the need to play such tricks to legislate gun control?

They played similar tricks with "interstate commerce" and other such BS in order to do something they knew damn well they weren't empowered to do.

So, in my estimation, that throws out the "lawmakers and judges" you list as people who were aware that the 2nd didn't do what it does.

And since they were deliberately circumventing the rule, we know that the founding fathers also intended it to do what it does. It should be obvious, given that these were men who won their freedom on the backs of an armed civilian population, and they understood the importance of the government fearing its citizens, rather than vice versa.

Phryxis wrote:

I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones

The fact that you weren't able to dismiss that offhand is indicative of a very poor grasp on reality, no matter what side of the pond.

You dont have to have a license to own an automatic weapon IIRC, thats just an urban legend. You do however have to pay i think 200 dollars for an extensive background check from some organization as well as get a written request signed by the chief of police for your county. All in all it takes about 2-3 months

Mostly correct. You actually have to have a stamp. An actual stamp. It's a $200 stamp, so instead of 42cents, it actually says $200 on it. You also have to have paperwork, and notify the Feds every time you change address.

It's a bit ridiculous.

So, anyway, I don't want do derail the possibility of more of these bewb pictures getting posted, because no matter how fake they are, fake bewbs fool my happy receptors every time, but...

Why guns?

Many reasons...

1) There is actually legal precedent in the US (and were a precedent based system, unlike the UK), that says the police have no legal responsibility to protect American citizens from harm. If you're in danger and the cops can't get there in time, they're not liable. To set that precedent, and also to deny the right to own weapons for defense is, in my eyes, immoral. "We're not required to protect you, and you're not allowed."

2) There's no practical use to banning them, and it's basically impossible. There are millions of guns in the US. There's no way to go get them all. Even if they did get rid of them all, how well does banning things really work in the end anyway? War on drugs? Why bother?

3) I think that government should constantly be practicing solving problems without taking people's freedom's away. It's odd to be questioned by a Brit about our crazy 2nd Amendment, when the Brits don't even have a 1st. There's no right to free speech in the UK... Europe is full of countries that solve social problems by stripping people's rights, taking their money, and controlling their lives. This is not progress, nor is it wisdom. Being former monarchies, the European nations don't have a real instinct for individual liberties, the way we do in the US. It's this spirit of individualism that led to the American ascension, and its the loss of this spirit, and the leftward slide of America back towards Europe, that is causing our current decline.

I personally own about two dozen guns. I enjoy shooting them, but I don't find them sexually arousing. I enjoy the process of training with them, it's physically and mentally demanding, and improving your skills is rewarding. I like knowing that I have the means to defend my home against an intruder, and when the lunatics running the world eventually collapse our society, I'll have plenty of weapons to hold of the zombie hordes.

That's all, back to the bewbs.

On Point 3, there's the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the EU Bill of Human Rights: The latter is a piece of legislation that is actually elevated above our own, all legislation passed in the EU automatically supersedes UK law. Whilst I'd agree that the US has a better democratic system, I would argue that waaay fewer Europeans object to a "bigger" state that provides larger public services (and expects us to pay).