Jump to content

CAWs.ws
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Feed

Mass shooting thread


  • Please log in to reply
1379 replies to this topic

#1241 Mango kid

Mango kid

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 20,602 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 04:06 PM


Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.

Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

http://movies2.nytim...0.10willot.html

In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it (they shoed horses and made plows). The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.

Edited by Mango kid, 05 June 2019 - 04:13 PM.


#1242 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 05:12 PM

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.


Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

Guns for getting food was practical but guns for defense of the time was Impractical cuz if there's multiple people you only kill one before the others get you

 

 

That's why you have more than one gun.  Not to mention, during that time kids knew how to use guns.  You would all be armed.

 

And you indirectly just made the case for owning assault rifles too.  Congrats.


 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.

Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

http://movies2.nytim...0.10willot.html

In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it (they shoed horses and made plows). The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.

 

 

And yet people hunted with them and fought wars with them.

 

And if, by any chance, you are making the argument that the Founding Fathers were not aware of technological innovation but were able to fight the most powerful military in the world, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.  Especially considering that Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers and invented all sorts of things.

 

It is also why the first amendment is not restricted to just quill and paper.

 

Here's an article to how guns were used in the Colonial days and the different types of guns available.

 

https://sciencing.co...na-8105679.html


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 05:14 PM.


#1243 Mango kid

Mango kid

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 20,602 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 07:04 PM


 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.

Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

Guns for getting food was practical but guns for defense of the time was Impractical cuz if there's multiple people you only kill one before the others get you
 
 
That's why you have more than one gun.  Not to mention, during that time kids knew how to use guns.  You would all be armed.
 
And you indirectly just made the case for owning assault rifles too.  Congrats.

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.
Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

http://movies2.nytim...0.10willot.html

In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it (they shoed horses and made plows). The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.
 
 
And yet people hunted with them and fought wars with them.
 
And if, by any chance, you are making the argument that the Founding Fathers were not aware of technological innovation but were able to fight the most powerful military in the world, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.  Especially considering that Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers and invented all sorts of things.
 
It is also why the first amendment is not restricted to just quill and paper.
 
Here's an article to how guns were used in the Colonial days and the different types of guns available.
 
https://sciencing.co...na-8105679.html

Again you're missing the point has nothing to do with fighting War it's about self defense and back then colonial times self-defense a gun was in practical
A federal gun registry would more likely do a lot more good than bad make it streamline make every state have the same laws hell even the writer of the Constitution said it should be re-written every decade

#1244 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 10:38 PM

 

 

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.

Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

Guns for getting food was practical but guns for defense of the time was Impractical cuz if there's multiple people you only kill one before the others get you
 
 
That's why you have more than one gun.  Not to mention, during that time kids knew how to use guns.  You would all be armed.
 
And you indirectly just made the case for owning assault rifles too.  Congrats.

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.
Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

http://movies2.nytim...0.10willot.html

In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it (they shoed horses and made plows). The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.
 
 
And yet people hunted with them and fought wars with them.
 
And if, by any chance, you are making the argument that the Founding Fathers were not aware of technological innovation but were able to fight the most powerful military in the world, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.  Especially considering that Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers and invented all sorts of things.
 
It is also why the first amendment is not restricted to just quill and paper.
 
Here's an article to how guns were used in the Colonial days and the different types of guns available.
 
https://sciencing.co...na-8105679.html

Again you're missing the point has nothing to do with fighting War it's about self defense and back then colonial times self-defense a gun was in practical
A federal gun registry would more likely do a lot more good than bad make it streamline make every state have the same laws hell even the writer of the Constitution said it should be re-written every decade

 

 

What do you think war is?  It is self defense.  The second amendment protects us from enemies foreign or domestic.  And guns were practical.

 

A federal gun registry would do more harm than good because it would only require law-abiding citizens to register and not felons.

 

Ah yes, the Constitution should be rewritten argument.  The Constitution can be rewritten at anytime.  Its called amending it.  There are rules in place for that.  The only other way is a Convention of States, which bypasses the federal government as a way to rewrite the Constitution.  It is actually something that conservatives have long advocated for.  The Democrats are frightened for a convention to happen, because big government would likely disappear.

 

So by all means, call your Senator or Representative and request for a Convention of States.  I urge you to.


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 10:41 PM.


#1245 Mango kid

Mango kid

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 20,602 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:01 PM


 

 

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.
Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

Guns for getting food was practical but guns for defense of the time was Impractical cuz if there's multiple people you only kill one before the others get you
 
 
That's why you have more than one gun.  Not to mention, during that time kids knew how to use guns.  You would all be armed.
 
And you indirectly just made the case for owning assault rifles too.  Congrats.

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.
Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

http://movies2.nytim...0.10willot.html

In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it (they shoed horses and made plows). The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.
 
 
And yet people hunted with them and fought wars with them.
 
And if, by any chance, you are making the argument that the Founding Fathers were not aware of technological innovation but were able to fight the most powerful military in the world, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.  Especially considering that Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers and invented all sorts of things.
 
It is also why the first amendment is not restricted to just quill and paper.
 
Here's an article to how guns were used in the Colonial days and the different types of guns available.
 
https://sciencing.co...na-8105679.html
Again you're missing the point has nothing to do with fighting War it's about self defense and back then colonial times self-defense a gun was in practical
A federal gun registry would more likely do a lot more good than bad make it streamline make every state have the same laws hell even the writer of the Constitution said it should be re-written every decade
 
 
What do you think war is?  It is self defense.  The second amendment protects us from enemies foreign or domestic.  And guns were practical.
 
A federal gun registry would do more harm than good because it would only require law-abiding citizens to register and not felons.
 
Ah yes, the Constitution should be rewritten argument.  The Constitution can be rewritten at anytime.  Its called amending it.  There are rules in place for that.  The only other way is a Convention of States, which bypasses the federal government as a way to rewrite the Constitution.  It is actually something that conservatives have long advocated for.  The Democrats are frightened for a convention to happen, because big government would likely disappear.
 
So by all means, call your Senator or Representative and request for a Convention of States.  I urge you to.

No,not amend when Thomas Jefferson wrote it he said Rewritten like completely from scratch
And no war and home defense is totally two different things you idiot and I'm calling you the idiot so that's says a lot if you have three guys breaking into your house you only have a musket you can kill one guy the other two will whoop your ass war and self-defense is not the same thing.

#1246 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:06 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.
Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

Guns for getting food was practical but guns for defense of the time was Impractical cuz if there's multiple people you only kill one before the others get you
 
 
That's why you have more than one gun.  Not to mention, during that time kids knew how to use guns.  You would all be armed.
 
And you indirectly just made the case for owning assault rifles too.  Congrats.

 

 

Funny that you posted some of the Declaration of Independence when at the time African-Americans weren't grated equal did not have those rights so you post in the Declaration of Independence means absolutely s***

For someone who claims to be a constitutional lawyer you would know that Second Amendment right didn't mean that s*** because back then a gun for home defense was very impractical

 
No it doesn't.  Actually, some of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin.  The preservation of the colonies against British tyranny caused slavery to stick unfortunately because the colonies had to be kept together.  We would learn a valuable lesson about hundred years later during the Civil War.
 
Back in the colonial days, guns for home defense was very practical.  Imagine being under the rule of the British while the Quartering Act was in place.  It
required local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food.  Not to mention, if you didn't have guns back then you didn't eat.

 

I guess you failed to remember the part where you have to fight a war with guns.
Actually they weren't very practical because they were one shot only this is very well know that's why they still carry knives and sore they were more practical for home defense than guns were at the time

http://movies2.nytim...0.10willot.html

In the Colonial period, the gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay for a skilled artisan. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it (they shoed horses and made plows). The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact). It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).

The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.
 
 
And yet people hunted with them and fought wars with them.
 
And if, by any chance, you are making the argument that the Founding Fathers were not aware of technological innovation but were able to fight the most powerful military in the world, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard.  Especially considering that Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers and invented all sorts of things.
 
It is also why the first amendment is not restricted to just quill and paper.
 
Here's an article to how guns were used in the Colonial days and the different types of guns available.
 
https://sciencing.co...na-8105679.html
Again you're missing the point has nothing to do with fighting War it's about self defense and back then colonial times self-defense a gun was in practical
A federal gun registry would more likely do a lot more good than bad make it streamline make every state have the same laws hell even the writer of the Constitution said it should be re-written every decade
 
 
What do you think war is?  It is self defense.  The second amendment protects us from enemies foreign or domestic.  And guns were practical.
 
A federal gun registry would do more harm than good because it would only require law-abiding citizens to register and not felons.
 
Ah yes, the Constitution should be rewritten argument.  The Constitution can be rewritten at anytime.  Its called amending it.  There are rules in place for that.  The only other way is a Convention of States, which bypasses the federal government as a way to rewrite the Constitution.  It is actually something that conservatives have long advocated for.  The Democrats are frightened for a convention to happen, because big government would likely disappear.
 
So by all means, call your Senator or Representative and request for a Convention of States.  I urge you to.

No,not amend when Thomas Jefferson wrote it he said Rewritten like completely from scratch

 

And no war and home defense is totally two different things you idiot and I'm calling you the idiot so that's says a lot if you have three guys breaking into your house you only have a musket you can kill one guy the other two will whoop your ass war and self-defense is not the same thing.

 

 

Yeah, that's why the Convention of States is in the Constitution.  It is a way to rewrite it.

 

It certainly is.  Tell the colonials it's not during the Quartering Act.  Also answer why the colonials were able to outgun the British with fewer bullets, fewer guns and fewer soldiers?  Because they used guerilla warfare.  It is not just about the numbers, it is how you use the terrain. Same principle in home self defense.  You just don't walk out and expose yourself.  You use the layout of your home to your advantage, since your enemy doesn't know the layout.

 

https://www.wearethe...on-within-reach

 

For example, this guy took out thirty (that's thirty) Taliban fighters singlehandedly when they tried to storm his outpost.  Amazing story.


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 11:20 PM.


#1247 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,245 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:23 PM

A higher power hasn't given you a right to anything. What the *Censored* are you talking about?

And war is self defence? Again, what the *Censored* are you talking about?

And where the *Censored* do you live if you expect 3 armed people to break into your house, and what kind of enemies you have?

Litteraly, what the *Censored* are you talking about?

#1248 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:25 PM

A higher power hasn't given you a right to anything. What the *Censored* are you talking about?

And war is self defence? Again, what the *Censored* are you talking about?

And where the *Censored* do you live if you expect 3 armed people to break into your house, and what kind of enemies you have?

Litteraly, what the *Censored* are you talking about?

 

Our rights come from something higher than government.  It is why we are citizens and are not considered subjects.

 

Yes, once again war is self defense.  If you care to disagree, try arguing that to the British and French during World War I or II.

 

You gave the example, not me.

 

 

I'm talking about stuff you obviously have no comprehension of.

 


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 11:29 PM.


#1249 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,245 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:34 PM

You have rights based on principles that were agreed on. As a society. As a civilization throught history...

So by your defonition... a war is self defence by both sides?

And no I didn't even mention the war before mylast post...

Edited by aono55, 05 June 2019 - 11:35 PM.


#1250 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:42 PM

You have rights based on principles that were agreed on. As a society. As a civilization throught history...

So by your defonition... a war is self defence by both sides?

And no I didn't even mention the war before mylast post...

 

No, because the government does not give us our rights.  It's the reason that it takes more than a majority in government to amend anyone's rights.

 

No, the engagement is generally started by an offender taking action (Boston Massacre).  In this case, it was the British.

 

"It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, since volleys relied on mass impact)." - You


Edited by TheShape_1978, 05 June 2019 - 11:52 PM.


#1251 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,245 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:58 PM

Society ==/== goverment

I literally never said goverment gives you rights, nor did I imply it.
But I have no comprehension...

And no, not "me". Because that was Mango kid... You were talking to him about it the whole time...

#1252 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 06 June 2019 - 12:03 AM

Society ==/== goverment

I literally never said goverment gives you rights, nor did I imply it.
But I have no comprehension...

And no, not "me". Because that was Mango kid... You were talking to him about it the whole time...

 

 

 

Society creates government.  Rights are created by a higher power, that is bestowed upon society.

 

I never said you did.

 

My mistake.  Both of your arguments are on the same level so I conflated you both.



#1253 aono55

aono55

    Main Eventer

  • Members
  • 3,245 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:23 PM

 

Society ==/== goverment

I literally never said goverment gives you rights, nor did I imply it.
But I have no comprehension...

And no, not "me". Because that was Mango kid... You were talking to him about it the whole time...

 

 

 

Society creates government.  Rights are created by a higher power, that is bestowed upon society.

 

I never said you did.

 

My mistake.  Both of your arguments are on the same level so I conflated you both.

 

 

"You are out of your element Donny."

 

If you didn't, then don't deflect or mention things that are not part of the argument or that anybody is claiming. And if you say that "rights are created", then you are oblivious to what I am saying or to the conversation. You can believe in whichever or whatever kind of higher power you want. Belief is belief, I respect that and that's not up for debate. But "rights", we have, are not created by a higher power. To say that "rights were created by a higher power" is metaphysical and we are not having that kind of conversation at all. 

 

Bananas are red.

 

Really, don't resort to flamebaiting just because you can't properly read and argue. 


Edited by aono55, 06 June 2019 - 11:27 PM.


#1254 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,556 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 06 June 2019 - 11:58 PM

God never gave anyone guns nor is it a God-given right. Even if it was, it sounds hypocritical as by that logic, stuff like abortion and migration are also God-given rights (latter is literally how USA was created), and yet you have people arguing against that. Guns, like cars, video games, and other materials, are privileges. Those who aren't fit to own a weapon used for ending lives shouldn't be allowed to even touch a gun, and people shouldn't be allowed to buy tons of guns or stock up on guns, there's no reason to. 



#1255 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 07 June 2019 - 12:20 AM

God never gave anyone guns nor is it a God-given right. Even if it was, it sounds hypocritical as by that logic, stuff like abortion and migration are also God-given rights (latter is literally how USA was created), and yet you have people arguing against that.

 

Guns, like cars, video games, and other materials, are privileges.

 

Those who aren't fit to own a weapon used for ending lives shouldn't be allowed to even touch a gun, and people shouldn't be allowed to buy tons of guns or stock up on guns, there's no reason to. 

 

It is a God-given right.  That's why it is in the Bill of Rights.  And the Declaration of Independence states that our rights are given to us by our Creator, not government.  Abortion and migration are not in the Bill of Rights, therefore they are not given to us by our Creator.  It's a pretty easy concept to understand.

 

No, guns are not.  That is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.  Again, an easy concept to understand.

 

You're right.  Those who aren't fit to own a weapon shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun.  We generally define that as those who voluntarily gave up their rights (felon) by committing a crime or by having mental deficiency.

 

Law-abiding citizens who meet the qualifications should be able to buy as many guns as they want because, once again, it is a God-given right.



#1256 M3J

M3J

    Captain Fap

  • Members
  • 53,556 posts
  • SEN (PS3): ask in PM
  • Twitter: ask in PM

Posted 07 June 2019 - 01:16 AM

It's not a God-given right. THat's assuming God is real, guns have existed for centuries even before Christ, and God likes seeing his supposed children kill each other. 

 

Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (both made before we got guns like machine guns and shit, right?) aren't from God. Does the Bible or Ten Commandments mention guns? I mean, a founder could have just as easily written that the creator does not want citizens to use guns, but would you believe that? I highly doubt it as it wouldn't go with what you want. Plus, if it really was a God-given right, then wouldn't everyone be born with a gun in their hands? Wouldn't everyone own a gun at some point, and all countries allow people to own guns? And wouldn't that make God a horrible person for letting people own weapons designed to kill? Isn't killing a sin in the first place?

 

Migration has been happening since the beginning of time, and abortion isn't a man-made thing, even the body will abort naturally if it has to. 

 

Yes, guns are privileges. 

 

No, it's not a God-given right. And what's to stop "law-abiding" citizens from hiding their true intentions and selling guns or planning to use guns to commit mass murder? No one whatsoever needs to own 10s or 100s of guns. 



#1257 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 07 June 2019 - 01:23 AM

It's not a God-given right. THat's assuming God is real, guns have existed for centuries even before Christ, and God likes seeing his supposed children kill each other. 

 

Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (both made before we got guns like machine guns and shit, right?) aren't from God.

 

Does the Bible or Ten Commandments mention guns?

 

I mean, a founder could have just as easily written that the creator does not want citizens to use guns, but would you believe that? I highly doubt it as it wouldn't go with what you want.

 

Plus, if it really was a God-given right, then wouldn't everyone be born with a gun in their hands?

 

Wouldn't everyone own a gun at some point, and all countries allow people to own guns?

 

And wouldn't that make God a horrible person for letting people own weapons designed to kill?

 

Isn't killing a sin in the first place?

 

Migration has been happening since the beginning of time, and abortion isn't a man-made thing, even the body will abort naturally if it has to. 

 

Yes, guns are privileges. 

 

No, it's not a God-given right. And what's to stop "law-abiding" citizens from hiding their true intentions and selling guns or planning to use guns to commit mass murder? No one whatsoever needs to own 10s or 100s of guns. 

 

-I never said guns come from God.  I said the right to bear arms comes from God.  You can deny it all you want.  Doesn't make it any less true.  All you have is your opinions.  I have the actual text from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

 

First from the Declaration of Independence:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Now from the Bills of RIGHTS:

 

"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 Bible nor the Ten Commandments mention guns, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

-That's not what happened, so again, irrelevant.

 

-Again, it is the right to bear arms.  Not the right to be born with a gun in your hand.

 

-The United States citizens recognize that rights come from their Creator.  Everyone should have these rights.  However, they are subject to the governments they live in, unfortunately.

 

-Not if it is for self-defense.

 

-No, the original Hebrew translation is "Thou shall not murder."

 

-Now, if you would like to counter and point out to me where abortion and migration are in the Bill of RIGHTS, by all means show me.

 


Edited by TheShape_1978, 07 June 2019 - 01:36 AM.


#1258 Mango kid

Mango kid

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 20,602 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 01:40 AM


It's not a God-given right. THat's assuming God is real, guns have existed for centuries even before Christ, and God likes seeing his supposed children kill each other. 
 
Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (both made before we got guns like machine guns and shit, right?) aren't from God.
 
Does the Bible or Ten Commandments mention guns?
 
I mean, a founder could have just as easily written that the creator does not want citizens to use guns, but would you believe that? I highly doubt it as it wouldn't go with what you want.
 
Plus, if it really was a God-given right, then wouldn't everyone be born with a gun in their hands?
 
Wouldn't everyone own a gun at some point, and all countries allow people to own guns?
 
And wouldn't that make God a horrible person for letting people own weapons designed to kill?
 
Isn't killing a sin in the first place?
 
Migration has been happening since the beginning of time, and abortion isn't a man-made thing, even the body will abort naturally if it has to. 
 
Yes, guns are privileges. 
 
No, it's not a God-given right. And what's to stop "law-abiding" citizens from hiding their true intentions and selling guns or planning to use guns to commit mass murder? No one whatsoever needs to own 10s or 100s of guns. 

 
-I never said guns come from God.  I said the right to bear arms comes from God.  You can deny it all you want.  Doesn't make it any less true.  All you have is your opinions.  I have the actual text from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  I
 
First from the Declaration of Independence:
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


 

Now from the Bills of RIGHTS:


 

"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 Bible nor the Ten Commandments mention guns, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
-That's not what happened, so again, irrelevant.
 
-Again, it is the right to bear arms.  Not the right to be born with a gun in your hand.
 
-The United States citizens recognize that rights come from their Creator.  Everyone should have these rights.  However, they are subject to the governments they live in, unfortunately.
 
-Not if it is for self-defense.
 
-No, the original Hebrew translation is "Thou shall not murder."
 
-Now, if you would like to counter and point out to me where abortion and migration are in the Bill of RIGHTS, by all means show me.
 

Facepalm that doesn't make guns a god-given right and again you posted decoration in the I guess African-Americans at the time did not have god-given rights so that that negates the whole the whole Declaration of Independence


It's not a God-given right. THat's assuming God is real, guns have existed for centuries even before Christ, and God likes seeing his supposed children kill each other. 
 
Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (both made before we got guns like machine guns and shit, right?) aren't from God.
 
Does the Bible or Ten Commandments mention guns?
 
I mean, a founder could have just as easily written that the creator does not want citizens to use guns, but would you believe that? I highly doubt it as it wouldn't go with what you want.
 
Plus, if it really was a God-given right, then wouldn't everyone be born with a gun in their hands?
 
Wouldn't everyone own a gun at some point, and all countries allow people to own guns?
 
And wouldn't that make God a horrible person for letting people own weapons designed to kill?
 
Isn't killing a sin in the first place?
 
Migration has been happening since the beginning of time, and abortion isn't a man-made thing, even the body will abort naturally if it has to. 
 
Yes, guns are privileges. 
 
No, it's not a God-given right. And what's to stop "law-abiding" citizens from hiding their true intentions and selling guns or planning to use guns to commit mass murder? No one whatsoever needs to own 10s or 100s of guns. 

 
-I never said guns come from God.  I said the right to bear arms comes from God.  You can deny it all you want.  Doesn't make it any less true.  All you have is your opinions.  I have the actual text from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
 
First from the Declaration of Independence:
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


 

Now from the Bills of RIGHTS:


 

"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 Bible nor the Ten Commandments mention guns, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
-That's not what happened, so again, irrelevant.
 
-Again, it is the right to bear arms.  Not the right to be born with a gun in your hand.
 
-The United States citizens recognize that rights come from their Creator.  Everyone should have these rights.  However, they are subject to the governments they live in, unfortunately.
 
-Not if it is for self-defense.
 
-No, the original Hebrew translation is "Thou shall not murder."
 
-Now, if you would like to counter and point out to me where abortion and migration are in the Bill of RIGHTS, by all means show me.
 

Again does not a god-given right that is a Man created right

A well regulated militia who's regulating the militia is the militia the National Guard or your average person and in that case your average person needs to be regulated

How about we do this we completely get rid of the whole Constitution rewrite it so constitutional lawyers like you no longer have a job cuz it won't be vague as s***

#1259 TheShape_1978

TheShape_1978

    Opener

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • SEN (PS3): TheShape_1978

Posted 07 June 2019 - 01:43 AM

 

 

It's not a God-given right. THat's assuming God is real, guns have existed for centuries even before Christ, and God likes seeing his supposed children kill each other. 
 
Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (both made before we got guns like machine guns and shit, right?) aren't from God.
 
Does the Bible or Ten Commandments mention guns?
 
I mean, a founder could have just as easily written that the creator does not want citizens to use guns, but would you believe that? I highly doubt it as it wouldn't go with what you want.
 
Plus, if it really was a God-given right, then wouldn't everyone be born with a gun in their hands?
 
Wouldn't everyone own a gun at some point, and all countries allow people to own guns?
 
And wouldn't that make God a horrible person for letting people own weapons designed to kill?
 
Isn't killing a sin in the first place?
 
Migration has been happening since the beginning of time, and abortion isn't a man-made thing, even the body will abort naturally if it has to. 
 
Yes, guns are privileges. 
 
No, it's not a God-given right. And what's to stop "law-abiding" citizens from hiding their true intentions and selling guns or planning to use guns to commit mass murder? No one whatsoever needs to own 10s or 100s of guns. 

 
-I never said guns come from God.  I said the right to bear arms comes from God.  You can deny it all you want.  Doesn't make it any less true.  All you have is your opinions.  I have the actual text from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  I
 
First from the Declaration of Independence:
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


 

Now from the Bills of RIGHTS:


 

 

"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 Bible nor the Ten Commandments mention guns, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
-That's not what happened, so again, irrelevant.
 
-Again, it is the right to bear arms.  Not the right to be born with a gun in your hand.
 
-The United States citizens recognize that rights come from their Creator.  Everyone should have these rights.  However, they are subject to the governments they live in, unfortunately.
 
-Not if it is for self-defense.
 
-No, the original Hebrew translation is "Thou shall not murder."
 
-Now, if you would like to counter and point out to me where abortion and migration are in the Bill of RIGHTS, by all means show me.
 

Facepalm that doesn't make guns a god-given right and again you posted decoration in the I guess African-Americans at the time did not have god-given rights so that that negates the whole the whole Declaration of Independence

 

It's not a God-given right. THat's assuming God is real, guns have existed for centuries even before Christ, and God likes seeing his supposed children kill each other. 
 
Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence (both made before we got guns like machine guns and shit, right?) aren't from God.
 
Does the Bible or Ten Commandments mention guns?
 
I mean, a founder could have just as easily written that the creator does not want citizens to use guns, but would you believe that? I highly doubt it as it wouldn't go with what you want.
 
Plus, if it really was a God-given right, then wouldn't everyone be born with a gun in their hands?
 
Wouldn't everyone own a gun at some point, and all countries allow people to own guns?
 
And wouldn't that make God a horrible person for letting people own weapons designed to kill?
 
Isn't killing a sin in the first place?
 
Migration has been happening since the beginning of time, and abortion isn't a man-made thing, even the body will abort naturally if it has to. 
 
Yes, guns are privileges. 
 
No, it's not a God-given right. And what's to stop "law-abiding" citizens from hiding their true intentions and selling guns or planning to use guns to commit mass murder? No one whatsoever needs to own 10s or 100s of guns. 

 
-I never said guns come from God.  I said the right to bear arms comes from God.  You can deny it all you want.  Doesn't make it any less true.  All you have is your opinions.  I have the actual text from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
 
First from the Declaration of Independence:
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


 

Now from the Bills of RIGHTS:


 

 

"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 Bible nor the Ten Commandments mention guns, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
-That's not what happened, so again, irrelevant.
 
-Again, it is the right to bear arms.  Not the right to be born with a gun in your hand.
 
-The United States citizens recognize that rights come from their Creator.  Everyone should have these rights.  However, they are subject to the governments they live in, unfortunately.
 
-Not if it is for self-defense.
 
-No, the original Hebrew translation is "Thou shall not murder."
 
-Now, if you would like to counter and point out to me where abortion and migration are in the Bill of RIGHTS, by all means show me.
 

Again does not a god-given right that is a Man created right

A well regulated militia who's regulating the militia is the militia the National Guard or your average person and in that case your average person needs to be regulated

How about we do this we completely get rid of the whole Constitution rewrite it so constitutional lawyers like you no longer have a job cuz it won't be vague as s***

 

 

The Founding documents and Supreme Court related court cases would disagree with you entirely.  

 

*shrugs*

 

I can't believe people are actually arguing against what the Founding Documents and case law said.  This is twilight zone material.



#1260 Mango kid

Mango kid

    Official CAWs.ws Addict

  • Members
  • 20,602 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 02:00 AM

Well considering that one of the founding fathers said the Constitution should be Rewritten every decade it's not so much it has never been Rewritten since it was created and Amendment doesn't count

And you're going by judges interpretation which may not be what it was actually meant when it was written

And it still does not change the fact that man's rights are not the same as God given rights could God did not give the person rights man did