Forums

what is happening?

• SGTBilko 1,686 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 7:58 AM

  CharlemagneRH:

  SGTBilko:

  LMAO!  What ever man.....not sure what calculus has to do with this or any discussion. I would love to see you run a multi-million dollar business.

  I own my own business, make roughly $80/hr, and will have a $12k check in my pocket by the end of the day.

  Have a nice day.

   

  (Note: I spend much of my money helping those who are less fortunate.  I tip 30% at restaurants [unless the meals are over $25/plate], buy meals for unemployed friends, etc.)

  ROFLMAO! Glad to hear you are such a philanthropist. ROFLMAO! Your mom is still calling. OMG My side is hurting. Thanks for the great laugh....

• SGTBilko 1,686 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 8:12 AM

  Richard4168:

  What's wrong with voicing my opinion Bilko? It's the truth. Try reading the Yahoo article, they say the same thing. You make yourself look like a moron for denying someone a chance to speak their opinions, especially if the said opinion doesn't line-up with you ideologically.

  -------------------------------------------------------------

  I agree with the second amendment right, but there needs to be a grace period on gun sales in a lot of Conservatively controlled states. People should not have access to buy a firearm without a background check, and/or a grace period.

  Nothing is wrong with voicing ones opinion it was just the wrong thread, maybe the wrong time. I would never suppress anyones right to there voice, just that your remarks were more a knee jerk reaction blaming those on the right. If you want to get technical about it, the left has killed far more in the name of their idealogical beliefs than those on the right ever have. But I digress, my point was you remarks were based more on your subjective belief about the right than on facts. You can put all the laws you want on the books, I guarantee this sick young man would have still found a gun.

  How about a gut check question. Did you condemn code pink and others when they burned Bush in effigy or when people carried signs with him in cross hairs or called for his murder?? If you did then you are cosistent in your beliefs, if not then you would be a hypocrite.

   

   

• Richard4168 4,309 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 8:53 AM

  SGTBilko:

  Did you condemn code pink and others when they burned Bush in effigy or when people carried signs with him in cross hairs or called for his murder?? If you did then you are cosistent in your beliefs

  Most assuredly Bilko, I do condemn those acts. There is no room for this kind of crap that nut-job pulled in politics, period. I'm no flaming Liberal that's for sure. I liked George W. Bush and agreed with some of his policies, and most of his Conservative values as well. The radical left has issues with Government as well as the radical right in this country, saying that one party is more responsible for their outlandish actions isn't the point, it's all outlandish when it occurs from anyone, at any-time.

  It wasn't a coincidence that a lot of people on both sides of the isle questioned Palin's act as the article alluded too. Palin's dinner probably tasted a little sour last night when she got news of the events that occurred in Arizona.

• SGTBilko 1,686 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 9:19 AM

  Richard4168:

  SGTBilko:

  Did you condemn code pink and others when they burned Bush in effigy or when people carried signs with him in cross hairs or called for his murder?? If you did then you are cosistent in your beliefs

  Most assuredly Bilko, I do condemn those acts. There is no room for this kind of crap that nut-job pulled in politics, period. I'm no flaming Liberal that's for sure. I liked George W. Bush and agreed with some of his policies, and most of his Conservative values as well. The radical left has issues with Government as well as the radical right in this country, saying that one party is more responsible for their outlandish actions isn't the point, it's all outlandish when it occurs from anyone, at any-time.

  It wasn't a coincidence that a lot of people on both sides of the isle questioned Palin's act as the article alluded too. Palin's dinner probably tasted a little sour last night when she got news of the events that occurred in Arizona.

  I like your post

• swannyxx 303 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 9:50 AM

  JuanMendoza:

  Concealed weapons don't require a permit? Jesus..

  th state i live in you do!!!!!!

   

• borntobesting 9,706 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 10:08 AM

  The second amendment as it was written in 1789 does not say that you have the right to own a gun. "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 key word there being militia. Because at the time just about everyone was a member of some sort of militia to protect our new country. Today we have a strong military to do that so militias are not needed. Any militia today is considered militant and illegal. 

• TextMyPC 232 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 10:26 AM

  The right to bear arms was designed to control, or more inward, overthrow, the government if it became corrupt. We still have that right.

  You don't need a permit for a gun in your house. To conceal it, you do.

  -TMPC

• nickuk 967 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 10:31 AM

  my sympathy goes out to the victims and their families....especially the youngster! RIP 

  One of the problems with the constitutional right to bear arms is the vast technological change in guns between 1776 and now. A gun in 1776 was a single shot device which took maybe 30 seconds to load, was accurate only at a few paces, cost a lot of money, and could not be carried concealed and still be fired. Such guns were only useful for hunting, in very short range scuffles, and in massed ranks for armies.
  
  The writers of the constitution never dreamed of Saturday Night Specials, sniper rifles with sights good at a mile, magnum charges which can go through a wall, and automatics which can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. Which makes the current effect of the Right to Bear Arms very different from what they would have intended. Whether they would have said the same with today's gun technology, no-one can know.
  
  People always forget the other segment of that amendment, that indicating the right to bear arms is granted in order to maintain a well regulated militia. It didn't mean you should have a Smith & Wesson in your glove compartment.
  
  America will never end its love affair with fire power, but will continue being the victims of it
  
  not my words....but so true!

• SGTBilko 1,686 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 10:33 AM

  borntobesting:

  The second amendment as it was written in 1789 does not say that you have the right to own a gun. "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 key word there being militia. Because at the time just about everyone was a member of some sort of militia to protect our new country. Today we have a strong military to do that so militias are not needed. Any militia today is considered militant and illegal. 

  1. The supreme court has settled this as law of the land

  2. The supreme court also looked at the founding fathers intent and the right to firearms is cited not only in the federalist papers but in numerous writings by the founding fathers.

  3. The milita at the time was the citizens since there were was no free standing military authorized at the time.

  4. So you are saying that the National Guard in each state is thus illegal and the common citizen soldier covered under not only Title 32 of US Code but each state constitution is unconstitutional. They are in definition and still considered a state militia. What about  posse comitatus, state militia's are exempt from them thus as well as a standing reserve for the Armed Forces. The word National Guard is just a title and they are still controlled by the CIC of each state, the governor.

   

  A good argument but the bottom line...the right to own a gun is inherent in the American way of life and I believe any attempt to remove them from the citizens would probably end in another revolution in this country. IMO

• SGTBilko 1,686 Posts

  Sun, Jan 9 2011 10:37 AM

  nickuk:

  The writers of the constitution never dreamed of Saturday Night Specials, sniper rifles with sights good at a mile, magnum charges which can go through a wall, and automatics which can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. Which makes the current effect of the Right to Bear Arms very different from what they would have intended. Whether they would have said the same with today's gun technology, no-one can know.

  The founding fathers were very wise men. The constitution is not stuck in time and can be amended through the constitutional process of either an amendment or a constitutional convention. The problem with that repealing the right to bear arms is 1. You would never get enough politicians nor states to agree to change the 2nd amendment and they would never allow a constitutional convention because once convened they have no control over the process and so much would be changed they do not want.