|
School Shooting in... Finland. 7 killed (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
while we are all waiting for a foreign army to invade so we can use our guns to defends ourselves as intended by the framers, our cities are being terrorized by handgun violence. And I don't want to hear, "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because that's bull, guns make killing people far easier. |
Ohhh, please. They've created a culture of violence for us and then they want to step in and try to remedy that by taking away our Constitutional rights?
That might have worked in pre-Nazi Germany but it's not about to happen here. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, personally. I was simply making a statement to your otherwise underhanded, goading insinuation that we should be listening to people who are smarter than ourselves. Like I really want to sit here and listen to that tripe.
I like how you edited your post after the fact, too.
How disingenuous can you be? |
First, i was referring to people who specialize in constitutional law. Con law is not an area where you can read wikipedia and become even close to proficient in the area.
You are right, it's truly disingenuous to edit my post about 7 minutes before anyone responded. :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, personally. |
the only people who say they are more intelligent (this is me being disingenuous - i forgot to add 'more') than others are people who can't convince others of their intelligence through statements and arguments. Once you say you're more intelligent than most people you instantly lose your credibility. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
First, i was referring to people who specialize in constitutional law. Con law is not an area where you can read wikipedia and become even close to proficient in the area.
You are right, it's truly disingenuous to edit a different part of my post. :rolleyes:
the only people who say they are intelligent are those who can't convince others of their intelligence through statements and arguments. Once you say you're more intelligent than most people you instantly lose your credibility. |
I'm not looking for credibility for I have nothing that I'm selling here. I just profess the truth and I'm sorry if you can't take it.
Instead of arguing from ignorance, perhaps you could try reading a little bit more into the matter. You sound like you're either some kind of propagandist or just another establishment shill who seeks to masquerade the web of deception that's been wovern around us as some sort of deranged form of intellectual integrity. I'm sorry but I don't put up with that crap. My forefathers didn't risk their lives in two wars so that I could see some crooked politico's take away my 2nd Amendment rights.
Anyway, as far as those rights are actually concerned, I have many friends who own guns who are also pretty keen on this matter. One of them is a former Army Ranger who is somewhat apprehensive because they seem to also be honing in on former members of the military for future gun confiscations.
It's all a big scam and from what I've heard, even the NRA could be in on it. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
First, i was referring to people who specialize in constitutional law. Con law is not an area where you can read wikipedia and become even close to proficient in the area.
the only people who say they are more intelligent (this is me being disingenuous - i forgot to add 'more') than others are people who can't convince others of their intelligence through statements and arguments. Once you say you're more intelligent than most people you instantly lose your credibility. |
You're the one who instantly assumed that we should be reading the opinions of "more intelligent people" without further investigating how intelligent we might actually be here on this board.
I'd say the onus is on you for speaking before you really even knew the facts. So what if I say that I'm intelligent? I'm a freaking polymath and score in the top .001 %ile in many things. I often struggle to articulate myself but I still laugh at the personal mindsets of most lawyers and have actually successfully defended myself in court on quite a few occasions. So freakin' sue me because I like to use my brain for thinking about lofty ideals and also about how to fix our world's problems, without doing it for any sort of personal or material gain. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
You sound like you're either some kind of propagandist or just another establishment shill who seeks to masquerade the web of deception that's been wovern around us |
hahaha, i love it! didn't take too long before you brought out that old chestnut. you're like a broken record in here *yawns* |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hahaha, i love it! didn't take too long before you brought out that old chestnut. you're like a broken record in here *yawns* |
Its a sad testament to his mind set......
pretty ing pathetic |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
I think it's more of a testament of my awareness of the billions of deflated US Dollars that continue to get poured into America's spy, snitch, informant and yes, even the lowly, shady, sleazy, ten dollar an hour message board troll networks. ;)
You can toss the ad hominems but you (as well as your posts) lack any kind of substance. I think that's the most sad thing of anything. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I think it's more of a testament of my awareness of the billions of deflated US Dollars that continue to get poured into America's spy, snitch, informant and yes, even the lowly, shady, sleazy, ten dollar an hour message board troll networks. ;) |
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
:rolleyes: |
Yep, that's really about all I figured you'd have to say :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Wow.
Trancer-X's claims:
1. Government wants to take away our guns for no other reason than to make it easier to oppress us. That way they can take away our sovereignty too.
2. Supreme Court Justices aren't as intelligent as him.
3. We all get paid ten dollars an hour by the government to put down his loony ideas (nevermind that this is an international forum... I'm sure the global government or CFR fits into this pay scheme somewhere).
4. We're all Nazis (as inferred by a post here, his avatar, and a post in another thread directly likening himself to an anti-Nazi whistleblower).
5. Ad hominems are below him... but he'll throw them around at everyone anyhow.
I thought you were truly insane before, but you're really out-doing yourself this time around.
Word of advice - if you want your ideas to be taken seriously, don't declare yourself to be the smartest kid in the room, whether it is true or not. It's extraordinarily egotistical (and comes off pretty crazy). Also, the more outlandish, unsubstantiated claims you make, the less credibility you have. This thread is a perfect example of how quickly you appear willing to expend all of your credibility without providing a single iota of proof of your wildest assertions.
We don't think you're crazy because we are blinded by the government or work for them. We think you're crazy because you refuse to use logic or actual support for your arguments, instead relying on vague assertions, wild accusations, and articles that don't actually correlate with what it is you are trying to say. The quotes and videos are cute, but again, sources other than Wiki and Youtube are usually more compelling.
Also, the CATO Institute is hardly an example of fair and balanced legal reasoning. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
I'm not even going to click on the ignored post but I bet you $50 it's something having to do with me and not the topic at hand.
These trolls are good, I tell ya!! :haha: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811):
| quote: | § 1889. The next amendment is: "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."
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.2 And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid
_______________________________
2 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219, 220.
CH. XLIV.] QUARTERING SOLDIERS. 747
of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.1
1 It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist. IV. ch. 74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma,sine stipendiis, neque stipendia sine tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1 Black. Comm. ch. 13, p. 408 to 417. |
http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm
Even in 1811, interpretation of the law was as a right to form a well-regulated militia in order to oppose a standing military, and not simply as the unaffiliated right to accumulate weapons, which Justice Story explicitly warned was a bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
