Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

reply to post by macman


Nah I'm done playing, this is an all too familiar wall that I'm banging my head against... we disagree on some issues so you feel the need to hate me and attribute all kinds of things you associate evil with to throw at me and the when you finally read after 20 tries that I support the 2nd amendment you still have to use whatever you can to make it very clear that you still dislike me... I don't really care about that, we're both anonymous people on the internet... but what bothers me is that this was a chance for a discussion between people of different ideologies who at the base support the same thing and you spit in my face.

When you lose out on the discussion because you can't be civil don't be so quick to blame 'the left'. Just look in a mirror.

No one is going to listen to a word you have to say if you just automatically slam people and that hun, is the running theme among the lot of you.

reply to post by beezzer


Thanks bunnyboy, you infuriate me sometimes but I have a lot of respect for you too... plus I know your wife gets revenge for us lefties

If you wouldn't mind taking a look at what I posted here I have some concerns about the Executive Actions as well and I would really like to discuss them.

Originally posted by macman

But, what is the definition of "regulated" from that time period, 1776 or so. Regulate really meant "to make regular", meaning easy and the same.

Hmmm...Well forgive me for not taking your word for it...

From 1828...

regulated
REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

1828.mshaffer.com...

Also Websters 1828
machaut.uchicago.edu...

Or we can further back...1792

REGULATE Latin
1 To adjust by rule or method
2 To direct IV seman

REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating

books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

REGULATION The act of regulating

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

So....Reality...and actual dictionaries of the time dispute your creative definition which you got from...where again did you come up with it?

reply to post by macman


What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about gun owners in general, my whole rant was talking about everybody, not just ats. My whole point was if most of the people cared about their amendments, NDAA wouldn't exist. But now we suddenly care about the 2nd amendment?

I know people on this website are more perceptive then the general crowd, and it wasn't aimed on ATS, my rant is directed at the general populace. The general populace that is okay with NDAA, NDRP and the extension of the Patriot Act.

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by macman

 

What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about gun owners in general, my whole rant was talking about everybody, not just ats. My whole point was if most of the people cared about their amendments, NDAA wouldn't exist. But now we suddenly care about the 2nd amendment?

I know people on this website are more perceptive then the general crowd, and it wasn't aimed on ATS, my rant is directed at the general populace. The general populace that is okay with NDAA, NDRP and the extension of the Patriot Act.

I guess cuz this one protects the others......eh? lmao

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

But, what is the definition of "regulated" from that time period, 1776 or so. Regulate really meant "to make regular", meaning easy and the same.

Hmmm...Well forgive me for not taking your word for it...

From 1828...

regulated
REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

1828.mshaffer.com...

Also Websters 1828
machaut.uchicago.edu...

Or we can further back...1792

REGULATE Latin
1 To adjust by rule or method
2 To direct IV seman

REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating

books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

REGULATION The act of regulating

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

So....Reality...and actual dictionaries of the time dispute your creative definition which you got from...where again did you come up with it?

You are correct on the definition of "regulate" but very confused as to its application. The militia was "regulated" as to what the scope of its actions were... not the arms it possessed.

How do you rectify the seemingly contradictory combination of words in the same sentence?

"well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"

Seem at odds don't they?

Swing batta batta swing... STRIKE!

Originally posted by Pedro4077

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Pedro4077

They can now feel a little more secure in their schools.

Yep, because now the criminal that was going to carry out the act anyways, will definitely think twice before they go and shoot innocent kids in the "0bama really means it, no high cap mags or assault rifles" zone.
Yeah, ok then.

You will soon be trading in your guns for food anyway - The American Dollar is on it's last legs.

Bread will be $20 Bucks a Loaf - A Steak will cost $100 Dollars.

Enjoy Eating your Bullets, while Everybody else has Food.

Ever hear of...GASP!!hunting for your food? or even...fishing?? Sheesh. another foreighner predicting the demise of the US once again. It is a old song and has been played before. Time for a new tune. ANd do not even responding back I wont answer you Troll.

Hi
as usual I'm Puzzled by the situation on the gun control.

Most people are killed with a hand gun but they are banning assault rifles.

So I'm thinking what does the government have that you could shot with a rifle....

Will the only thing I could think of was drones. Any else think this could be pre-emptive banning?

Without a weapon to shot down a drone you are helpless and then all the other threads talking about drones being allowed to kill Americans, in the name of protection.

Perhaps there is an alternative like a jammer or smokescreen type weapon that could be used to stop the camera.


Who knows what will happen hopefully nothing. Good luck flock.

Obama hit the race element of the issue yeaterday and the billy bob factor. Did anyone catch that?

reply to post by Indigo5


Hmmm...perhaps you should read the entire 2nd Ammendment....and check into further
definitions.

From Dictionary.com....

in·fringe
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon)
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere: to break, weaken.
Synonyms
1. break, disobey. 2. poach.

And "regulate" in the constitution does not mean control.

Again....

reg·u·late
verb
1. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
2. to put in good order.

Seems alot clearer when you read the whole Ammendment. In more modern wording....

"An efficient, accurate, and well ordered militia is required for the security of the people, our liberty, and nation; as such the people's right to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed, breached, violated, trangressed, encroached upon, trespassed, broken, disobeyed, poached, or weakened.

Not sure how to make it clearer to anyone.

Originally posted by Kali74
Nah I'm done playing, this is an all too familiar wall that I'm banging my head against... we disagree on some issues so you feel the need to hate me and attribute all kinds of things you associate evil with to throw at me and the when you finally read after 20 tries that I support the 2nd amendment you still have to use whatever you can to make it very clear that you still dislike me... I don't really care about that, we're both anonymous people on the internet... but what bothers me is that this was a chance for a discussion between people of different ideologies who at the base support the same thing and you spit in my face.

Who said I hate you.
I love all people.
I hate people's actions, especially people that are ill informed and who think that they or the Govt gets to dictate to me on life and guaranteed freedoms.

Originally posted by Kali74
When you lose out on the discussion because you can't be civil don't be so quick to blame 'the left'. Just look in a mirror.

Oh, the "civility" retort. Man, I really don't need you for this discussion. I can play it all out before you open your mouth or type a word.

Originally posted by Kali74
No one is going to listen to a word you have to say if you just automatically slam people and that hun, is the running theme among the lot of you.

Look, I am not your "hun", talk about condescending.

If you want to not play anymore, then the door is just behind you. Watch out, is it has a tendency to smack you in the behind as you leave.

If you want to get over being butt hurt, come back and play any time.

reply to post by Indigo5


Looks like you failed to put in bold "put in good order".
Well regulated. To have the Militia practice and be ready.

Geez and to think that you would actually answer ALL the questions, instead of cherry picking.

Banter on my friend, banter on.

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by macman

 

What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about gun owners in general, my whole rant was talking about everybody, not just ats. My whole point was if most of the people cared about their amendments, NDAA wouldn't exist. But now we suddenly care about the 2nd amendment?

I know people on this website are more perceptive then the general crowd, and it wasn't aimed on ATS, my rant is directed at the general populace. The general populace that is okay with NDAA, NDRP and the extension of the Patriot Act.

I don't speak for all gun owners.
AS with most people, they are uninformed on NDAA except what the MSM tells them, as parroted from the Tyrant 0bama.

reply to post by Indigo5



I so love the fact that your questions are answered/addressed yet you willingly and purposely refuse to answer mine.

Now who is being dishonest?


I shall provide them again, so as there is NO question that you have read and seen them. I will even number them, so it is easy for you to reply to each.


1) What does
A well regulated militia. Mean to YOU, Indigo5.


2) What does
being necessary to the security of a free state Mean to YOU, Indigo5.


3) What does
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Mean to YOU, Indigo5.


4) What does
the right of the people to keep and bear arms Mean to YOU, Indigo5





5) SO, which is the evil gun.

or

or




So, five questions. 5 very simple questions.

Will you answer them???

Originally posted by 11235813213455
How do you rectify the seemingly contradictory combination of words in the same sentence?

"well regulated" and "shall not be infringed"

Seem at odds don't they?

Not at all. You seem confused about the premise of "rights" in the constitution being absolute. They are not.

Each and every right in the "bill of rights" (first 10 amendments) is regulated.

Take speech...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do we allow pornographers to show obscene pictures on billboards? Does NBC have pornography...Do we let Ciggerette manufacturers advertise to kids on the Disney network...ad infinium.

Rights are not absolute in the United States. The bar is appropriately high when we consider restricting those rights, but the premise that they are absolute is false.

EDIT TO ADD: Now that I think about it...Speech is regulated all the time and yet has no "well regulated" qualifier in the bill of rights...and the founders opted to include "Well Regulated" int he 2nd amendment...the only right they chose to include that phrase in...what does that tell you?

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Hmmm...perhaps you should read the entire 2nd Ammendment....and check into further
definitions.

From Dictionary.com....

in·fringe
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon)
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere: to break, weaken.
Synonyms
1. break, disobey. 2. poach.

I don't think the founding fatthers were using "Dictionary.com" when they wrote the constitution...I provided a whole slew (with links) of definitions from the period the 2nd amendment was written...which was what the topic was.

BS much?

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Seems alot clearer when you read the whole Ammendment. In more modern wording....

"An efficient, accurate, and well ordered militia is required for the security of the people, our liberty, and nation; as such the people's right to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed, breached, violated, trangressed, encroached upon, trespassed, broken, disobeyed, poached, or weakened.

Not sure how to make it clearer to anyone.

You have issue with your argument when you need to write your own version of the 2nd amendment.

reply to post by macman


Stop asking dumb questions and maybe I'll afford you an answer...despite the dishonest manner in which you ignore most of my posts?

Guns are not "Bad" or "Evil" those are emotional tags. A thermo-nuclear weapon is not evil, and yet I don't want everyone to have access to one.

I think what you are trying to ask, but unable to without interjecting BS, is which is the assualt weapon? Your point being that they are all what? .22s? The difference being grip, stock, scope and what capacity magazine they have?

So you are trying to ask what? What defines and Assualt Weapon?...actually I have no idea what you are trying to ask..."which gun is evil"?? I don't answer dumb questions....if you think I believe that inanimate objects are "evil"...you are starting from a position of arrogance + Ignorance and haven't budged an inch...

And you are asking for my "opinion" on what the second amendment means..Which I would expect from someone that does not distinguish thier own opinion from fact.

I have provided dozens of definitions and supporting links...from Scotus rulings to dictionaries from the time. Unlike yourself...I do not look to "feelings" for the definitions of words or phrases...I "think"...I provided you with those definitions and then some...if facts don't do it for you...then I can't help you..

Actually the "evil guns" bit...I can't help you anyways...you are in a small room and happy there.

Originally posted by Indigo5


REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating
books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

To Direct.
Lets say "A well directed Militia" then.
Geez, and who would direct the Militia?

Oh, and it does not state "a well regulated arms".

Nice, but still no cookie.

reply to post by Indigo5


So basically this is your answer

Nice. I love it when your statements are answered and addressed directly.

But, when you are asked questions, you refuse.


You are about the most dishonest person here on ATS.


Nice to know that, at least.