Another school shooting - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15050226
B0ycey wrote:Well you do bring it down a level I must say.

What well regulated Militia are you part of again?


It's funny that you want to say I'm stupid, yet you make it glaringly clear that you don't know what a militia is.

It's not a bunch of white guys on a farm in Idaho...
By B0ycey
#15050236
BigSteve wrote:It's funny that you want to say I'm stupid, yet you make it glaringly clear that you don't know what a militia is.

It's not a bunch of white guys on a farm in Idaho...


Sure a militia isn't a bunch of white guys on a farm in Idaho. I never said it was. However it isn't a single fat white guy on PoFo either. The constitution doesn't suggest you have unregulated gun laws. It says you should be part of a well regulated Militia to bare arms. That is regulation within an organisation that protects the state FYI. Not a fanatic who loves shooting up schools having a free pass to buy assault weapons. Not that I care. Just pointing out your obvious error.
#15050238
B0ycey wrote:I don't know why the confusion. Clearly the right to bare arms is linked to being part of a regulated Militia. Otherwise the sentence is missing "and". So anyone who is part of a well regulated Militia has the constitutional right to own weapons.


That is an amazingly wrong. You ever heard of this thing we have in the US called the supreme court. Very clearly you are wrong and very uniformed.
By B0ycey
#15050242
Finfinder wrote:That is an amazingly wrong. You ever heard of this thing we have in the US called the supreme court. Very clearly you are wrong and very uniformed.


Well anyone other half a brain will know that it about how powerful the Gun lobby is rather than justice when it comes to verdicts on these cases. Next you'll be saying smoking doesn't kill or burning fossil fuel doesn't cause the climate to change. Typical lacky. The second ammendment is one sentence linking a militia, security, arms to each other. It isn't fragmented and missing a break to distinguish between commas. It is the statement.
#15050247
B0ycey wrote:Well anyone other half a brain will know that it about how powerful the Gun lobby is rather than justice when it comes to verdicts on these cases. Next you'll be saying smoking doesn't kill or burning fossil fuel doesn't cause the climate to change. Typical lacky. The second ammendment is one sentence linking a militia, security, arms to each other. It isn't fragmented and missing a break to distinguish between commas. It is the statement.


I was replying to your post I'm not the one on an international forum saying completely uniformed and wrong things. How come its been held up in the supreme court since before gunny Loibbies even existed? Ad hominem attacks are just a sign you lost the argument.
#15050249
Finfinder wrote:Ad hominem attacks are just a sign you lost the argument.
That applies to those arguing FOR guns, too... which you will find in abundance in this thread.
#15050252
I am just reinforcing your point, @Finfinder. :D It works both ways.
#15050255
Finfinder wrote:[...] You ever heard of this thing we have in the US [...] Very clearly you are wrong and very uniformed.


Just a note in general, just because a person isnt informed about your country specifically doesnt mean they are "very uninformed", especially if they arent even living in the same country.

The USA specifically is very crazy and does many things in a way that dont make too much sense to us europeans.
#15050257
Finfinder wrote:I was replying to your post I'm not the one on an international forum saying completely uniformed and wrong things. How come its been held up in the supreme court since before gunny Loibbies even existed? Ad hominem attacks are just a sign you lost the argument.


I can read and understand the statement for its intent is to protect militias for the protection of the state. Otherwise it would just say bare arms.

Personally I don't give a shit if you are or not allowed to buy guns. I don't live there so it's clear and obvious risks are not a danger to me. Although it does mention regulation so saying your mentally ill should not be challenged to buy guns really is a fucked up position to support even if you want to interpret the amendment anyway that fits your narrative.
#15050262
Negotiator wrote:Just a note in general, just because a person isnt informed about your country specifically doesnt mean they are "very uninformed", especially if they arent even living in the same country.

The USA specifically is very crazy and does many things in a way that dont make too much sense to us europeans.



That doesn't make sense. We are on a debate forum if you are going to discuss a topic you should know it and be able to defend it. I responded to a poster who used the term "clearly" and called me a "lackey".

If the constitution "clearly" meant militia then why hasn't the US Supreme court upheld this in the entire history of our country? (rhetorical)

B0ycey wrote:I can read and understand the statement for its intent is to protect militias for the protection of the state. Otherwise it would just say bare arms.

Personally I don't give a shit if you are or not allowed to buy guns. I don't live there so it's clear and obvious risks are not a danger to me. Although it does mention regulation so saying your mentally ill should not be challenged to buy guns really is a fucked up position to support even if you want to interpret the amendment anyway that fits your narrative.


Next time know what your talking about before you post it on an international forum. Where are you from?
By B0ycey
#15050266
Finfinder wrote:Next time know what your talking about before you post it on an international forum. Where are you from?


Typical Yank. Doesn't even know what his second amendment says.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15050271
@BigSteve It's funny that you want to say I'm stupid, yet you make it glaringly clear that you don't know what a militia is.

It's not a bunch of white guys on a farm in Idaho...


No its not. But these "prepare for treason" GI wannabees are a very good reason to regulate certain weapons and prevent stockpiling of certain ammunition.

A well regulated militia is not anyone who wants to buy any kind of guns either. Completely untrained people cannot by definition be a "well ordered" militia.

@Hindsite That is an amazingly wrong. You ever heard of this thing we have in the US called the supreme court. Very clearly you are wrong and very uniformed.


I believe you might want to review the SCOTUS decisions about firearms. In the landmark decision that asserts that the people have the right to keep and bear arms the court was very specific in allowing that certain kinds of arms may be banned or licensed, that they may be banned from certain places, and that licensing to purchase weapons may be required.

This decision was more smoke than fire. Basically what the court said is that individuals have the right to own weapons for defense of the home. They left to the various authorities some latitude in defining what those might be.

@BigSteve Please pay attention to this from the actual ruling writen by Justice Scalia:

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
#15050274
B0ycey wrote:At least I can read.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Keep your guns. The British, French and Spanish are sailing across as we speak!!


Obviously you cannot read. Why has the supreme court upheld the 2nd time and time again?

BTW Don't worry we will bail you out again.
Last edited by Finfinder on 22 Nov 2019 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
By B0ycey
#15050276
You mean to bare arms right? I have told you. The Gun lobby is fucking powerful. But that doesn't mean the word Militia somehow is magically removed from the second amendment or that the intent was indeed to preserve it.
#15050279
B0ycey wrote:You mean to bare arms right? I have told you. The Gun lobby is fucking powerful. But that doesn't means the word Militia somehow is magically removed from the second amendment or that the intent was indeed to preserve it.



So what just because you want to cling to one word that doesn't make it "clearly". You do not have to belong to a militia to own guns and because you are afraid of guns doesn't make your argument true. My arguments are backed by the US Supreme Court.

Lobby ? What does that have to do with anything.
By B0ycey
#15050280
Finfinder wrote:So what just because you want to cling to one word that doesn't make it "clearly". You do not have to belong to a militia to own guns and because you are afraid of guns doesn't make your argument true. My arguments are backed by the US Supreme Court.


Well perhaps you shouldn't have deleted your example that contradicted you halfway down when it explained it's intent. :lol:

I don't know how obtuse you want to be but "a well regulated Militia" is the like the first line. Being that it is one sentence means the right to bare arms and a militia is linked. This is like elementary English. But whatever. You are being obtuse because it's against your narrative.
#15050281
B0ycey wrote:Well perhaps you shouldn't have deleted your example that contradicted you halfway down when it explained it's intent. :lol:

I don't know how obtuse you want to be but "a well regulated Militia" is the like the first line. Being that it is one sentence means the right to bare arms and a militia is linked. This is like elementary English. But whatever. You are being obtuse because it's against your narrative.


You said clear, there is nothing clear about it you can have the last post until eternity but until then you can own guns as an individual and not be in a militia and that is as clear as day.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
The Irishman...

You know BS. You just made a complete fool out of[…]

We have gone on to the next page. So far no ACC d[…]

Yes, to show that even the falsified data (so f[…]

The evidence is all around you. You just refuse […]