Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Insane Proposal of the Day 4/2/18 >

Insane Proposal of the Day 4/2/18

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Insane Proposal of the Day 4/2/18

Old 04-04-2018, 07:05 PM
  #21  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 774
Default

In my small understanding, limiting, restricting, or disabling an object from it's primary function is the same definition as limiting, restricting, or disabling the object itself. Again, a firearm without ammo is a club, not a firearm. Just as an internal combustion engine is a hunk of metal without fuel. So banning or restricting ammo is a straight out assault to the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS and the other high courts and political people may be immune to logic but I don't think they are completely stupid. Some of these liberal weenies may be counting on John Q. Public to be blind fools but they have to know they can't get these ridiculous bans and restrictions of ammo through the higher courts. It's just them fluffing up their bird chests trying to look smart when they are just showing themselves to be the true idiots that most intelligent people already know them to be.
hunters_life is offline  
Old 04-04-2018, 07:48 PM
  #22  
Nontypical Buck
 
rockport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,315
Default

The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms not just firearms.
rockport is offline  
Old 04-05-2018, 08:58 AM
  #23  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,903
Default

Originally Posted by rockport View Post
The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms not just firearms.
Exactly. It covers firearms, knives, clubs, hatchets, bows, arrows, spears etc... And it has NOTHING to do with hunting!
flags is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 05:09 AM
  #24  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Wink

Originally Posted by rockport View Post
The 2nd gives us the right to bear arms not just firearms.
I think it only apples to guns. As I was led to understand it, the second amendment was a reaction to the fact that the British, when rumors of insurrection started floating, searched households and confiscated guns.

Although the second amendment says "shall not be infringed," from where I sit, I can think of many infringements.

I hate being realistic, but I can foresee the day when the second amendment is still in place, but just gets ignored like the tenth amendment.
sachiko is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 05:46 AM
  #25  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 12,447
Default

Or the first amendment on college campuses.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 08:03 AM
  #26  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,903
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
I think it only apples to guns.
You would be wrong. Come on Teach, you can do better than that! If people as intelligent as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton etc... only wanted it to apply to firearms they would have said so. It says ARMS.

What is the definition of arms when it pertains to things like this? Currently it means this: "weapons and ammunition; armaments." Courtesy of
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms

in 1700s the accepted definition was: " In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

I'd think a college professor would do some basic research before posting.

Last edited by flags; 04-06-2018 at 08:07 AM.
flags is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 12:01 PM
  #27  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Wink

Originally Posted by flags View Post
You would be wrong. Come on Teach, you can do better than that! If people as intelligent as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton etc... only wanted it to apply to firearms they would have said so. It says ARMS.

What is the definition of arms when it pertains to things like this? Currently it means this: "weapons and ammunition; armaments." Courtesy of
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms

in 1700s the accepted definition was: " In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

I'd think a college professor would do some basic research before posting.
Your argument is not unreasonable, but, as far as I'm concerned, not persuasive. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Since I'm not in the Navy, nor am I in your ROTC class, I don't have to agree with you.
sachiko is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 12:07 PM
  #28  
Nontypical Buck
 
rockport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,315
Default

Its amazing how easy it is for the government to manipulate people.

Words have definitions.... we know what arms means
rockport is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 12:23 PM
  #29  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,903
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Your argument is not unreasonable, but, as far as I'm concerned, not persuasive. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Since I'm not in the Navy, nor am I in your ROTC class, I don't have to agree with you.
So the actual definitions both prior and after have no bearing on you? It is a good thing I am not in your college class because I would drive you to tears. You have no research and no precedent to support your statement and you say I am not persuasive? You used a personal thought, I used a documented definition including one from that time period and gave you the source. And you're a professor!

Here is a challenge: Show me a court ruling that states the only thing the 2nd Amendment pertains to is a firearm? Can you do that? You can't can you. You are entitled to your own opinion on anything you want but you can't have your own facts! Are you really so obtuse that you don't think that Madison would not have said FIREARMS if that was all he was talking about? He never defined it just like he never defined the press or speech or assemble peacefully. Do you really think you are qualified to put words in the mouth of the man who wrote the Constitution?

So step up to the plate Teach and give me a valid historical court ruling that says what you claim the 2nd amendment says. Or will you can duck and run from the challenge or send "Dear Husband" in your place like you have before?
flags is offline  
Old 04-06-2018, 12:27 PM
  #30  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,903
Default

Originally Posted by rockport View Post
Its amazing how easy it is for the government to manipulate people.

Words have definitions.... we know what arms means
You do, I do, but it sure seems like a certain someone does not! I don't know about you but that scares me to think who is teaching our kids sometimes.
flags is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.