National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

2012-01-01 18:04:53

#51

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5609|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

Answer my question with another question. Guns don't scare me.

Care to answer when you are going to ever see a militia?

Bear in mind, it states a well regulated militia. IE those with the guns are supposed to act as a well regulated militia. The whole sentence has been ignored and only the second half ever been taken into account to allow you to buy guns.

What militia is there right now?
It's a sentence fragment. Our militias have been replaced by the National Guard. That bit of language is outdated, but it doesn't negate the right to bear arms, sorry.
Well if you militia has been replaced by the national guard, there isn't really a need for everyone to buy guns.

It's a sentence fragment isn't much of an argument. That's just taking the right to keep and bear arms out of context imo.

The necessary to the security of a free State is met, so why do you still have the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?

It's outdated and needs to be updated. The sentence (or atleast some of it) is irrelevant. Hopefully I was able to answer the following

Jay wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
um with some critical thinking, i.e this thing was written by dudes a few hundred years ago, it might not be particularly relevant today?
Old words are worthless? Ok.

Point out that which you feel is irrelevant.

I ask again, why are you afraid of guns?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-01 18:07:05

#52

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

Why do you assume he's afraid of guns?
Its a childish argument.

I don't doubt I own more guns than you, I don't see the need for the country to be awash with military automatic weapons so mongs like Sh1fty can think they're tough, and I don't believe thats what your 'founding fathers' had in mind either based on the way they wrote the second amendment.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-01 18:11:53)

Fuck Israel

2012-01-01 18:40:39

#53

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5836

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

You so funny.
Welcome to my ignore list. Enjoy trolling feos.
You're such a bad loser, bye bye.

He did the same thing with me. He will stop ignoring you after a month. Don't worry your little heart.

2012-01-01 18:41:15

#54

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6404|what

AussieReaper wrote:
Guns don't scare me.

It's absurd to think they are scary. Can they be better regulated? Sure.

But we were discussing the infallible constitution. Which is outdated and irrelevant in sections...

2012-01-01 18:44:46

#55

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5609|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Guns don't scare me.
It's absurd to think they are scary. Can they be better regulated? Sure.

But we were discussing the infallible constitution. Which is outdated and irrelevant in sections...

It's not irrelevant or outdated though, the National Guard is a militia. It's paid for and controlled by the states.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-01 18:49:54

#56

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5836

The part about housing troops seems a bit archaic. I understand it was a reaction against the intolerable acts and all but it doesn't seem like something you can see happening in modern Times in our country. The state can imminent domain your home if they wanted too anyway. It also wouldn't make sense in a serious war. Lincoln made the argument that it wasn't a suicide pact.

2012-01-01 19:17:41

#57

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6988|Cinncinatti

uzi your karma is exactly like haibais. point is the constitution is relevant. not all of it is but the point was teds is wrong.
yes, it would be very bad to go back to the original constitution but it wasnt all terrible.
i guess aristotles views of politics dont matter either.

2012-01-01 19:57:42

#58

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6404|what

Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Guns don't scare me.
It's absurd to think they are scary. Can they be better regulated? Sure.

But we were discussing the infallible constitution. Which is outdated and irrelevant in sections...
It's not irrelevant or outdated though, the National Guard is a militia. It's paid for and controlled by the states.

Then there is no need for everyone to bear arms? The militia is in place already.

2012-01-01 20:00:40

#59

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5609|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
It's absurd to think they are scary. Can they be better regulated? Sure.

But we were discussing the infallible constitution. Which is outdated and irrelevant in sections...
It's not irrelevant or outdated though, the National Guard is a militia. It's paid for and controlled by the states.
Then there is no need for everyone to bear arms? The militia is in place already.

le sigh.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

The people are the final check against a tyrannical government. If a government has a monopoly on force there is nothing stopping it from doing as it wishes.

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-01 20:03:30)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-01 20:02:47

#60

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6404|what

Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:

It's not irrelevant or outdated though, the National Guard is a militia. It's paid for and controlled by the states.
Then there is no need for everyone to bear arms? The militia is in place already.
le sigh.

The consitution should be re-written to explicity state the militia is the nat guard and seperately state the right to bear arms.

It's outdated until the second ammendment is updated accordingly.

2012-01-01 20:04:06

#61

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5609|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

Then there is no need for everyone to bear arms? The militia is in place already.
le sigh.
The consitution should be re-written to explicity state the militia is the nat guard and seperately state the right to bear arms.

It's outdated until the second ammendment is updated accordingly.

No, it's not. It's fine as is. Stop being a pedant.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-01 20:09:57

#62

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

Guns are awesome, everyone should have a gun.

https://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2011/01/11/Jared_Loughner12_540x405.jpg

But really gun ownership in America is nothing to do with 'freedurm' or 'duhfuhnding mah rahts' or militias.
Can you buy a Stinger missile or a TOW? No? Then you'll be fuck-all use if a tyrannical govt takes hold.
Doesnt matter how many carbon fibre doo-dahs you've stuck on your AR15, a tank or helicopter gunship is going to reduce you to compost.

Diverting morons onto fixating on a few lines in an old document is about distracting the plebs from the fact they have no real freedoms to speak of and that the only interest the govt has in them and the nation is that the tax dollars continue rolling in.
If they stay in their trailers stroking their guns and brandishing beer bottles every time Bill O'Reilly says something offensive then so much the better.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-01 20:35:14

#63

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5836

Bill O isn't as bad as you guys make him out to be. Hannity is the real wanker.

2012-01-01 20:49:14

#64

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6925|Canberra, AUS

He's just more rude than anything else, tbh. Although from all accounts he's only like that on air.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-01-01 20:51:07

#65

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6357|eXtreme to the maX

They're all paid lackeys on the Murdoch shilling.

I don't hate them as people

Fuck Israel

2012-01-01 21:14:19

#66

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5836

Spark wrote:
He's just more rude than anything else, tbh. Although from all accounts he's only like that on air.

On U.S. cable news arguing with the host happens in a way that it ends up in a circle jerk between the host, one his guest, against the other guy. Watch some Hannity shows for that. Bill O is different. He will 'debate' with someone one on one without having someone there to circle jerk him. When he has two guest he doesn't pile on one of them. I know it's just television and all but there is a difference.

@Dil he is actually one if the more moderate ones on Fox. Loud but not like the rest. Obama, Clinton, and a few other democrats have gotten interviews on the show and he has been critical but fair.

It's all a show though. Bill is just playing Bill. He has a masters from Harvard for journalism and used to be a serious investigative journalist. He just found a niche that could make him really wealthy and exploited it.

Full disclosure: I watch him and then Maddow whenever I can

2012-01-01 21:59:14

#67

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6965|US

FatherTed wrote:
i mean shit it was written in a world pre-lightbulbs

Pathetic argument. Is Shakespeare trash because he didn't type it on his laptop?

It is relevant because it is the highest law in the nation. If your law defies it, your law loses. Don't think it is right? Well, get a whole lot of people to agree with you and amend it, like we have before. The amendment process is difficult because it is a bad idea to change the core document of the nation every time a simple majority gets a bright idea.

As to the 2nd Amendment debate, "well-regulated" refers to the ability to function properly. The Militia (with multiple components) still exists in US code, and comprises MUCH more than the National Guard.

2012-01-01 22:01:47

#68

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5510|foggy bottom

bunch of tim mcveighs in here

Tu Stultus Es

2012-01-01 23:31:52

#69

1stSFOD-Delta: Mike "The Spooge Gobbler" Morales; +376|6229|Blue Mountain State

eleven bravo wrote:
bunch of tim mcveighs in here

https://www.itwirx.com/other/hksignature.jpg

Baba Booey

2012-01-01 23:45:24

#70

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6967

Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:

le sigh.
The consitution should be re-written to explicity state the militia is the nat guard and seperately state the right to bear arms.

It's outdated until the second ammendment is updated accordingly.
No, it's not. It's fine as is. Stop being a pedant.

I think people have a reading comprehension issue when coming to the second amendment

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-01-02 00:55:58

#71

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7022|PNW

The second clause is pretty specific, unless everyone's fine with the Feds just ripping up the constitution in every perceivable manner.

2012-01-02 11:21:53

#72

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5724|Ventura, California

Dilbert_X wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
youre a citizen?
He's a Swiss socialist-extremist sleeper attemptimg to infiltrate the US military.

Waterboard him until he admits it.

The Swiss are socialists, SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!!

You know too much, now I have to kill you.

Dilbert_X wrote:
The fact there are so many amendments points to it being an imperfect work in progress wouldn't you say?

Nice to see you weren't able to point out a single amendment from the Bill of Rights that you didn't agree with.

Hope the Supreme Court overturns this like they should. Freaking Judicial Review system

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-01-02 11:25:34

#73

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5724|Ventura, California

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
That bit of language is outdated.
Jay wrote:
Old words are worthless? Ok.

There's a difference between militia becoming the National Guard (the word changed over the years) and old words being irrelevant. Jay didn't discard the words he just updated them to their modern equivalent.

The word changed to it's modern counterpart, he didn't remove it.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-01-02 11:40:40

#74

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5510|foggy bottom

so youre not a citizen

Tu Stultus Es

2012-01-02 11:43:29

#75

jord: Member; +2,382|6929|The North, beyond the wall.

I think the point teds was making is that a few Americans will use "but the constitution says..." as a cop out in a debate. If you wanna hold the "supreme constitution" as shifty calls it on a pedestal then that's fine but the moment you offer a "the 2nd amendment says" retort you deserve to be shot with your own firearm.

Last edited by jord (2012-01-02 12:19:29)

BF2S Forums National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Spark wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer