Do you really need that? [W:99]

[CRUE CAB]

I would respond, "What I need, is for people to mind their own business. I have my reasons", and leave it at that.

Probably not what you want to say to mom when you still live in her house.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Probably not what you want to say to mom when you still live in her house.

Well then it's a good thing I haven't lived with her since 1987 then, huh.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Well then it's a good thing I haven't lived with her since 1987 then, huh.

I think the OP still does.

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

I will remind her of that next time I see her in her drop top Benz pulling out of her driveway from her two story house in Neptune Beach.

Did she get herself into debt when she had the option NOT to be in debt? I really don't need a lecture smart spending. My father's business is worth over $800k a year. He started from where I did, but made sure to never get into debt when he didnt have too. That is why he lived with his parents for a year and a half while he was buying the business (I wish to keep it nameless for anononimity reasons). He didnt want to have the home debt and business debt and student debt all at one time. He wanted to have a plan of attack. And back in the 80s...a bachelor's wasn't the equivalent to what it is now...certified trainable. That is all a 4 year degree is.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Did she get herself into debt when she had the option NOT to be in debt? I really don't need a lecture smart spending. My father's business is worth over $800k a year. He started from where I did, but made sure to never get into debt when he didnt have too. That is why he lived with his parents for a year and a half while he was buying the business (I wish to keep it nameless for anononimity reasons). He didnt want to have the home debt and business debt and student debt all at one time. He wanted to have a plan of attack. And back in the 80s...a bachelor's wasn't the equivalent to what it is now...certified trainable. That is all a 4 year degree is.

I quit reading at "daddy is rich".
She did it all on her own, and is paying it on her own. Her and my ex'es parents are divorced and their biological father passed 10 years ago. No one is "rich" in that family.

 

[Moot]

sadly for you and others who pretend that the second amendment only vests when one joins a state militia (if you don't have preexisting arms you cannot be much use to a muster),

That's what the armories and arsenols were for. The Springfield National Armory was the first and built in 1777 and Harper's Ferry was the second built in 1794. Building national arsonals and armories suggests the US government intended to arm and regulate state militias.

Springfield Armory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harpers Ferry Armory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the body of the constitution and the tenth amendment don't provide any support for the belief that the founders intended the federal government to regulate private possession of small arms

Well, my sig below says the opposite. :2razz: So if the Bill of Rights was intended for the federal government and the 2A is about regulating well armed militias then the 2A must be giving the federal government the authority to regulate well armed militias.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I just want to say I hate this question. Here is the context I most recently heard it."You are just going to the movies. Do you really need a gun?"

No.

That is a great defusal answer to that stupid question. I understand my mother though. She is my mother. She only thinks of me as her child. Doesn't matter that I have a license and several thousand round of practice and the best safety instruction a father can provide.

But it got me thinking. Why do people ask about need? Whose business is it to ask if I need it? Who can tell me what I need? Why do people seek to regulate on need? Where is the word "need" in the 2nd?

Do i need a butt plug wherever i go in case i get anal raped ?

 

[TurtleDude]

That's what the armories and arsenols were for. The Springfield National Armory was the first and built in 1777 and Harper's Ferry was the second built in 1794. Building national arsonals and armories suggests the US government intended to arm and regulate state militias.

Springfield Armory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harpers Ferry Armory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, my sig below says the opposite. :2razz: So if the Bill of Rights was intended for the federal government and the 2A is about regulating well armed militias then the 2A must be giving the federal government the authority to regulate well armed militias.

that is one of the most intellectually bankrupt claims about the constitution that I constantly encounter

the Bill of rights was designed to do one thing-prevent government intrusion on preexisting rights. If you claim it gives the federal government power you have demonstrated that you have absolutely NO CLUE about the constitution, the concept of a limited federal government or any of the other foundations upon which the founders set forth the parameters of our system of government. Your signature does not say what you claim and your comments about constitutional law are among the silliest on this board.

and since the concept of an unorganized militia assembling when needed assumes and requires proficiency with small arms prior to the muster, your first comments are silly as well

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

I quit reading at "daddy is rich".
She did it all on her own, and is paying it on her own. Her and my ex'es parents are divorced and their biological father passed 10 years ago. No one is "rich" in that family.

"Daddy is rich." LMAO! You say $800k and assumed that was his takehome? You don't know much about business huh? A majority of that price goes back into his business and pays for his employees healthcare, salary, and licensing and equipment he needs(extremely hefty cost). I won't mention his take home...but it ain't "daddy is rich" level.

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

No.

Do i need a butt plug wherever i go in case i get anal raped ?

So what you are saying is you have NOTHING worthwhile to contribute and can simply offer up lame drive by comments with no substance? Good to know aren't informed enough to debate the topic. That will serve well to use against you in the future. At least Moot is trying to argue Constitutional definitions.

Let me ask you. Can you predict the future?

 

[Lukas105]

If the police carry it everywhere, I get to carry my gun everywhere. Simple equality, That's what America is about right? The citizens themselves are America's homeland security, not some bogus government agency.

I just want to say I hate this question. Here is the context I most recently heard it.

"You are just going to the movies. Do you really need a gun?"

My mother addressing me when she saw me strapping on my 9mm to go to a late night flick. Now my normal response is:

"I hope not."

That is a great defusal answer to that stupid question. I understand my mother though. She is my mother. She only thinks of me as her child. Doesn't matter that I have a license and several thousand round of practice and the best safety instruction a father can provide.

But it got me thinking. Why do people ask about need? Whose business is it to ask if I need it? Who can tell me what I need? Why do people seek to regulate on need? Where is the word "need" in the 2nd?

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

If the police carry it everywhere, I get to carry my gun everywhere. Simple equality, That's what America is about right? The citizens themselves are America's homeland security, not some bogus government agency.

You have it all wrong. Security agents and police need special training in care of firearms. Especially in crowded places like New York City:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

34% hit ratio!!! 55% on Dogs!!!! One put his gun in an OVEN...an OVEN!!!

http://youtu.be/-NDKe2PVphg

And the sad part...Barney works for the federal government:

http://youtu.be/AxWWJaTEdD0

 

[Arbo]

I just want to say I hate this question. Here is the context I most recently heard it.

"You are just going to the movies. Do you really need a gun?"

My mother addressing me when she saw me strapping on my 9mm to go to a late night flick. Now my normal response is:

"I hope not."

That is a great defusal answer to that stupid question. I understand my mother though. She is my mother. She only thinks of me as her child. Doesn't matter that I have a license and several thousand round of practice and the best safety instruction a father can provide.

But it got me thinking. Why do people ask about need? Whose business is it to ask if I need it? Who can tell me what I need? Why do people seek to regulate on need? Where is the word "need" in the 2nd?

Because they have been brainwashed by those with an agenda to use 'need' as a basis for denying rights, or robbing productive citizens to give to the unproductive.

 

[Lukas105]

Some training huh, They can hardly even hit their target. You think they would get more training, being trusted with firearms.

You have it all wrong. Security agents and police need special training in care of firearms. Especially in crowded places like New York City:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

34% hit ratio!!! 55% on Dogs!!!! One put his gun in an OVEN...an OVEN!!!

Barneys Gun - YouTube

And the sad part...Barney works for the federal government:

Cop Shoots Self in Foot - YouTube

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So what you are saying is you have NOTHING worthwhile to contribute and can simply offer up lame drive by comments with no substance? Good to know aren't informed enough to debate the topic. That will serve well to use against you in the future. At least Moot is trying to argue Constitutional definitions.

You never answered my question.

Let me ask you. Can you predict the future?

No can you?

 

[Moot]

that is one of the most intellectually bankrupt claims about the constitution that I constantly encounter

Meh, thats just the way you are.

the Bill of rights was designed to do one thing-prevent government intrusion on preexisting rights. If you claim it gives the federal government power you have demonstrated that you have absolutely NO CLUE about the constitution, the concept of a limited federal government or any of the other foundations upon which the founders set forth the parameters of our system of government. Your signature does not say what you claim and your comments about constitutional law are among the silliest on this board.

and since the concept of an unorganized militia assembling when needed assumes and requires proficiency with small arms prior to the muster, your first comments are silly as well

Madison said if the federal government didn't have supremacy over the states...."it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

Madison would not have hobbled the federal government from providing for the defense and security of the country in the bill of rights. Your interpretation of the BoR is simply "monstrous."

 

[TurtleDude]

Meh, thats just the way you are.

Madison said if the federal government didn't have supremacy over the states...."it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

Madison would not have hobbled the federal government from providing for the defense and security of the country in the bill of rights. Your interpretation of the BoR is simply "monstrous."

so you believe that the BOR delegated power to the fderal government

LOL

 

[Moot]

so you believe that the BOR delegated power to the fderal government

LOL

The Article VI, clause 2 in the constitution gives the federal government supremacy over the states. The bill of rights "amends" the constitution. Thats why they're called "amendments".

a·mend·ment
/əˈmen(d)mənt/Noun
1.A minor change in a document.
2.A change or addition to a legal or statutory document.


The second amendment addresses the federal governments authority to regulate and arm militias.

 

[Arbo]

so you believe that the BOR delegated power to the fderal government

LOL

OMG, is she still babbling on? Must be using energizer batteries in that one...

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

Some training huh, They can hardly even hit their target. You think they would get more training, being trusted with firearms.

It was sarcasm , but they could use a 4 year college course on not being stupid.

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

You never answered my question.



No can you?

So. You cannot predict the future? Yet you can give a definite answer that I won't need a firearm? Interesting. You contradict yourself. Game over. Thanks for playing. Let me know when you want to be an adult and have a discussion. Until then keep the buttplugs to yourself.

 

[blackjack50]

Do you really need that?

The Article VI, clause 2 in the constitution gives the federal government supremacy over the states. The bill of rights "amends" the constitution. Thats why they're called "amendments".

a·mend·ment
/əˈmen(d)mənt/Noun
1.A minor change in a document.
2.A change or addition to a legal or statutory document.


The second amendment addresses the federal governments authority to regulate and arm militias.

Moot. In the 2nd...does it say, "the right of the people." Or does it say, "the right of the militia?"

 

[Morrigi]

Well you see, it SAYS "People" but it MEANS "Government".

Just like the 4th Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" but actually means "Shut up, we're the government. WE DO WHAT WE WANT!"

Right?

 

[TurtleDude]

OMG, is she still babbling on? Must be using energizer batteries in that one...

Its hilarious. Some comments permanently and completely destroy any semblance of credibility one might have on constitutional issues Saying that any part of the Bill of rights was designed, intended or even interpreted as delegating power to the federal government is one of those comments.

Moot still hasn't figured out that the bill of rights was intended only to limit Federal action (read the tenth, it pretty much sums that up) and was not until the creation of the 14th amendment did that change. As to the second, every holding of the courts of appeals throughout the various circuits save one, held that the second did not prevent state restrictions

 

[TurtleDude]

The Article VI, clause 2 in the constitution gives the federal government supremacy over the states. The bill of rights "amends" the constitution. Thats why they're called "amendments".

a·mend·ment
/əˈmen(d)mənt/Noun
1.A minor change in a document.
2.A change or addition to a legal or statutory document.


The second amendment addresses the federal governments authority to regulate and arm militias.

that last comment is completely moronic. the BOR says nothing about delegating power to the federal government. The second amendment does not address or state what you claim

please find ONE law professor from a top tier law school that actually agrees with you

Here are some that do not

Laurence Tribe-Harvard
Akhil Reed Amar-Yale
Sanford Levinson-Texas
William Van Alstyne-Duke
Eugene Volokh USC