• 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!

"God told me to shoot him, so I did."[W:333]

Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

Just because one choses to make something one's business does not validate it IS one's business.



You are free to personally believe whatever you want. As I've stated over and over, the right to keep and bear arms is not a requirement any individual must personally adhere to. I personally have no firearms. You don't have to have any firearms. But anyone who chooses to keep and bear arms has the right to.

As far as your "interpretation" that the right pertains only to the militia which you somehow erroneously boil down to only those who are military veterans? You have a right to believe whatever you want and practice it personally. However, your belief is unfounded on any factual basis or understanding of the history of this constitutional protection, and your personal interpretation notwithstanding...does not apply to anyone other than yourself. :shrug:

A) "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." The fact that the entire point of the 2'nd Amendment is CLEARLY the militia (the military) makes my point very much founded on a factural basis...that is the ONLY thing it is based on. Nowhere in the amendment does it even hint at people owning guns for reasons like to protect their homes from burglars. It talks about a) the military; and b) the Free state (the country/states).
Back then the military WAS the masses and their guns. Because back then, the founding fathers were not as moronic as today's leaders in this regard. They rightly kept the military very small but with a huge reserves (the militia). Now, they have the moronic idea of keeping a gigantic military that the nation cannot afford and is totally unnecessary. This is - of course - because idiotic/emotionally disturbed neocons dominate the government behind the scenes.
Everyone HAD to own guns so that they could bring their guns to battle when the nation mobilized the army.
Anyone with a remotely clear mind on this and just half common sense should (imo) clearly see that the 2'nd Amendment was CLEARLY just to do with the military...and nothing else.
That is fact as clearly spelled out by the words of the amendment.

It is the courts that have chosen to interpret these words in ways that do not honor the obvious meaning so that these idiot judges can have the guns they so desperately want to have. You will never see or talk to a more rabid bunch of salivating egomaniacs as when you talk to rabid gun lovers. They are totally closed-minded, egotistical, arrogant and illogical in their passion to the point of emotional instability on this issue.
They may be logical otherwise. But talk about taking away their guns and they start growling and salivating like how I assume child molestors act while sitting in a car outside of a pre-school. They are totally beyond logic and reason. The 'cold dead hands' insanity.


And B) your second point about my interpretation does not apply to anyone else is - no offense - ridiculous as you cannot possible know what every, single other American/human thinks about this and whether their interpretation is or is not similar to mine.
And, btw, I happen to know of many people who have expressed very similar views to my own on this matter.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

that is evasive and dishonest nonsense. and you have been edified that the groups with the most access and ownership of legal firearms, have gun violence rates no higher than the similar groups in nanny state nations

Which is utter nonsense as you have been shown multiple times from multiple sources
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

There's nuts all over the world. If they didn't use a gun they'd use something else. Focusing on a gun does nothing to solve the nut problem.

Nuts having guns makes killing far too easy for them as your massacre count graphically highlights
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

Nuts having guns makes killing far too easy for them as your massacre count graphically highlights

As I pointed out above:

'You will never see or talk to a more rabid bunch of salivating egomaniacs as when you talk to rabid gun lovers. They are totally closed-minded, egotistical, arrogant and illogical in their passion to the point of emotional instability on this issue.
They may be logical otherwise. But talk about taking away their guns and they start growling and salivating like how I assume child molestors act while sitting in a car outside of a pre-school. They are totally beyond logic and reason. The 'cold dead hands' insanity.'
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

Nuts having guns makes killing far too easy for them as your massacre count graphically highlights

Well, good thing that it is illegal for criminals and those with mental disabilities to own a gun huh? Or did you not know that? And yet...they still manage to get ahold of a gun and kill people. Despite the law. Despite laws that increase penalties for such even having a gun. Tell me flogger, how would YOU get rid of guns in the hands of criminals and mentally insane?
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

what is a "legal asshole with guns"? people who don't buy into the garment soiling hatred of weapons? Look, we understand the silly and feigned pathological hatred of firearms that comes from the Anti-Rights Coalition. But your attacks on gun owners really show a hysterical level of silliness

A veteran no less, who leaves a loaded gun on the counter when he takes a shower. A masterful piece of childcare. Bet they were trained never to touch it too!
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

Well, good thing that it is illegal for criminals and those with mental disabilities to own a gun huh?

I'm sure they concern themselves little with the legalities and far more with the ease of access
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

Moderator's Warning:
There is a whole lotta flame/baiting going on in here.

The topic is not each other nor each other's nationality.

Extraneous and excessive, flaming characterizations of each other or each other's position in the debate needs to stop as well.

Posters who choose not to heed this warning, will be thread banned and/or given points.
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

A) "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." The fact that the entire point of the 2'nd Amendment is CLEARLY the militia (the military) makes my point very much founded on a factural basis...that is the ONLY thing it is based on. Nowhere in the amendment does it even hint at people owning guns for reasons like to protect their homes from burglars. It talks about a) the military; and b) the Free state (the country/states).
Back then the military WAS the masses and their guns. Because back then, the founding fathers were not as moronic as today's leaders in this regard. They rightly kept the military very small but with a huge reserves (the militia). Now, they have the moronic idea of keeping a gigantic military that the nation cannot afford and is totally unnecessary. This is - of course - because idiotic/emotionally disturbed neocons dominate the government behind the scenes.
Everyone HAD to own guns so that they could bring their guns to battle when the nation mobilized the army.
Anyone with a remotely clear mind on this and just half common sense should (imo) clearly see that the 2'nd Amendment was CLEARLY just to do with the military...and nothing else.
That is fact as clearly spelled out by the words of the amendment.

It is the courts that have chosen to interpret these words in ways that do not honor the obvious meaning so that these idiot judges can have the guns they so desperately want to have. You will never see or talk to a more rabid bunch of salivating egomaniacs as when you talk to rabid gun lovers. They are totally closed-minded, egotistical, arrogant and illogical in their passion to the point of emotional instability on this issue.
They may be logical otherwise. But talk about taking away their guns and they start growling and salivating like how I assume child molestors act while sitting in a car outside of a pre-school. They are totally beyond logic and reason. The 'cold dead hands' insanity.

You're forgetting one very simple little thing. The first 10 Amendments is labeled "The Bill of Rights". Our government was founded upon the principle that it was The People that ruled the government/state. Not the other way around. As such it wouldn't make very much sense to create a Bill of Rights for State Governments now would it considering that they have no Rights. The only ones that have Rights are The People.

You also have grammar going against you. "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." Can you tell me what those commas in that sentence mean and do? Do you know what Clauses are?

And are you really going to claim that the Heller decision was without precedence? You do know that previous court rulings have said the same thing? Look up Presser v Illinois which was done in 1886 where they affirmed that there is an individual right to bare arms. Considering that those judges were in a position to know better what the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment to be better than anyone of today is capable of knowing I'd say that you can't claim them as being "idiot judges".
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

I'm sure they concern themselves little with the legalities and far more with the ease of access

Couldn't respond to the rest of my post?

But you are right here, criminals and mentally insane have no care for the legalities. Thanks for admitting that.
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

Couldn't respond to the rest of my post?

I've been through simple solutions on this forum multiple times here using facts and figures to make my point. Facts and figures don't work here sadly because people just hide behind flags and constitutions in order to justify the continued carnage which now stands at half a million needless deaths since the turn of the century

But you are right here, criminals and mentally insane have no care for the legalities. Thanks for admitting that.

They care about the ease by which they can aquire a firearm not the legalities of it. I notice you missed that point
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

I've been through simple solutions on this forum multiple times here using facts and figures to make my point. Facts and figures don't work here sadly because people just hide behind flags and constitutions in order to justify the continued carnage which now stands at half a million needless deaths since the turn of the century



They care about the ease by which they can aquire a firearm not the legalities of it. I notice you missed that point

I have asked gun restrictionists numerous times to come up with solutions that create barriers to crazies and criminals getting guns in addition to the severe penalties that are already in place for those such people caught with firearms WITHOUT interfering with the rights of honest people. To this day such solutions have not been proffered and in many cases, the gun restrictionists demonstrate a complete lack of care to the rights of the honest gun owners and in some cases-it is clear that banning honest gun owners from acquiring firearms appears to be at BEST, a price gun restrictionists don't care about and more likely, part of the plan
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

As I pointed out above:

'You will never see or talk to a more rabid bunch of salivating egomaniacs as when you talk to rabid gun lovers. They are totally closed-minded, egotistical, arrogant and illogical in their passion to the point of emotional instability on this issue.
They may be logical otherwise. But talk about taking away their guns and they start growling and salivating like how I assume child molestors act while sitting in a car outside of a pre-school. They are totally beyond logic and reason. The 'cold dead hands' insanity.'

what actually is your solution other than factually deficient attacks on gun owners? we do reject plans that pretend to be about criminals but are designed to impose hardship on those some gun restrictionists call "close minded egotistical and arrogant" gun owners.
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

I have asked gun restrictionists numerous times to come up with solutions that create barriers to crazies and criminals getting guns in addition to the severe penalties that are already in place for those such people caught with firearms WITHOUT interfering with the rights of honest people. To this day such solutions have not been proffered and in many cases, the gun restrictionists demonstrate a complete lack of care to the rights of the honest gun owners and in some cases-it is clear that banning honest gun owners from acquiring firearms appears to be at BEST, a price gun restrictionists don't care about and more likely, part of the plan

But you don't care how many nuts and criminals have guns and certainly have no interest in making it more difficult for them to do so. Where would all your targets go ? Like you said .....

.......'its better that 10 nutjobs get guns than one good person be wrongly disarmed.'

There is clearly no reasoning with someone who has a mindset like this
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

But you don't care how many nuts and criminals have guns and certainly have no interest in making it more difficult for them to do so. Where would all your targets go ? Like you said .....

.......'its better that 10 nutjobs get guns than one good person be wrongly disarmed.'


There is clearly no reasoning with someone who has a mindset like this

that is wrong. You seem to labor under the falsehood that if I don't agree to restricting or impeding honest peoples' rights I must WANT or don't care how many nuts have guns. I am fully in favor in hammering criminals caught using or misusing firearms. I am not willing to punish honest people in order to PRETEND we have done something about gun crime. Just as I am not willing to jail ten innocent citizens to pretend we have done something to solve a heinous crime.

Your arguments clearly suggest that you really don't care how many honest people are harassed, punished or restricted as long as you can pretend that your efforts are SAID to be anti crime. Nothing you have proposed has any hope in decreasing crime but they all do a great job in harassing honest gun owners
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

I've been through simple solutions on this forum multiple times here using facts and figures to make my point. Facts and figures don't work here sadly because people just hide behind flags and constitutions in order to justify the continued carnage which now stands at half a million needless deaths since the turn of the century

:shrug: I've also given solutions to solve the problem. But they're not simple as they actually involve targeting the causes of crime and how to handle those that are mentally unstable. I prefer to go after the actual causes of crime, not go after an object that can't do crap on its own.

They care about the ease by which they can aquire a firearm not the legalities of it. I notice you missed that point

:shrug: I didn't miss it at all. The only way for a criminal or mentally insane person to get a gun easy in the US is to get it illegally. You know, since a criminal or mentally insane person is incapable of getting a gun legally.
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

A) "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." The fact that the entire point of the 2'nd Amendment is CLEARLY the militia (the military) makes my point very much founded on a factural basis...that is the ONLY thing it is based on. Nowhere in the amendment does it even hint at people owning guns for reasons like to protect their homes from burglars. It talks about a) the military; and b) the Free state (the country/states).
Back then the military WAS the masses and their guns. Because back then, the founding fathers were not as moronic as today's leaders in this regard. They rightly kept the military very small but with a huge reserves (the militia). Now, they have the moronic idea of keeping a gigantic military that the nation cannot afford and is totally unnecessary. This is - of course - because idiotic/emotionally disturbed neocons dominate the government behind the scenes.
Everyone HAD to own guns so that they could bring their guns to battle when the nation mobilized the army.
Anyone with a remotely clear mind on this and just half common sense should (imo) clearly see that the 2'nd Amendment was CLEARLY just to do with the military...and nothing else.
That is fact as clearly spelled out by the words of the amendment.

It is the courts that have chosen to interpret these words in ways that do not honor the obvious meaning so that these idiot judges can have the guns they so desperately want to have. You will never see or talk to a more rabid bunch of salivating egomaniacs as when you talk to rabid gun lovers. They are totally closed-minded, egotistical, arrogant and illogical in their passion to the point of emotional instability on this issue.
They may be logical otherwise. But talk about taking away their guns and they start growling and salivating like how I assume child molestors act while sitting in a car outside of a pre-school. They are totally beyond logic and reason. The 'cold dead hands' insanity.


And B) your second point about my interpretation does not apply to anyone else is - no offense - ridiculous as you cannot possible know what every, single other American/human thinks about this and whether their interpretation is or is not similar to mine.
And, btw, I happen to know of many people who have expressed very similar views to my own on this matter.

Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

The problem with all these "militia"-based arguments is that proponents are looking at the past through the rose-colored lens of their current paradigm. They then seek in the past for whatever smidgen of support they can dredge up to justify their modern belief systems.

However, in order to understand the original intent one must recognize and eliminate assumption-bias based on ones current belief systems and try to examine the paradigm of the past to find the truth.

Had the authors of the Second Amendment wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to only persons in an organized militia, then the 2nd would have read : A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free [S]tate, the right of each State to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed.

Here are some posts from past arguments you might find enlightening...or not. :shrug:

Your entire position is revisionist B.S. It is you who are projecting current partisan views onto the paradigm of the post-revolutionary period...


Incorrect, and only reflects a revisionist bias. You really have no idea what you are talking about...

THIS one is especially detailed. If nothing else read this:

Well, your disagreement notwithstanding....

Followed by this:

I admit that over the last 100 years, as our society became more urbanized with increasing populations living in close confines, combined with technological advances in mass communication, that there has been a gradual paradigm shift from "then to now" thinking. This has led to a growing faction of society who feel, as you do, that at the very least some more stringent controls are needed to restrain this right and prevent harms. The arguments seem reasonable but the logic is somewhat faulty IMO. But I will explain one point at time.
 
Last edited:
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

As I pointed out above:

'You will never see or talk to a more rabid bunch of salivating egomaniacs as when you talk to rabid gun lovers. They are totally closed-minded, egotistical, arrogant and illogical in their passion to the point of emotional instability on this issue.
They may be logical otherwise. But talk about taking away their guns and they start growling and salivating like how I assume child molestors act while sitting in a car outside of a pre-school. They are totally beyond logic and reason. The 'cold dead hands' insanity.'

Introducing any new legislation that might help curb the gun violence would be like trying to take drugs off a junkie with this lot

You'd need to open firearms 'rehab' clinics nationwide so they could go somewhere for therapy ! :lol:
 
Re: "God told me to shoot him, so I did."

How come we don't hear much about "God told me not to shoot him, so I didn't". Is it because people imagine god to be a murderous old bastard?
 
Back
Top Bottom