This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kinder Graham
Pages: 1 ... 434445 4647 ... 243
1321
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:53:15 PM »
So I because Hitler was brought up I'd just like to point out that gun rights were greatly expanded under his regime.
Except for Jews
Gun ownership under Hitler is anything but fair to say the least. The only thing improved was gun regulations only applied to handguns and completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as the possession of ammunition included
There were many in Germany who could have used their expanded gun rights to attempt a revolution. That never happened though and the fact remains that gun rights were greatly expanded under him. If you were part of the SS you got more rights than the average German, but the average German still benefitted greatly in the gun rights department.
Guns for Jews wouldn't have changed the end result of the holocaust in all likelihood.
Once again, gun rights play no part in determining what a government ends up being or doing. The people residing in the country/state/et cetera is what determined that.
And there were many in Germany that had great devotion to the Nazis. What people don't remember is that Hitler was VOTED to power, meaning the people wanted him to be Chancellor as they to felt Jews were responsible for the economic problems. But these same people that supported Hitler were also Catholic, as the population of Germany was largely Catholic. Hitler had plans to eradicate all religions from Germany but had to start with the Jews because for one nobody liked them and secondly, had no way to properly defend themselves. As I told Nick, the Nazis saw them as superior and if the lowest of life, AKA Jews, managed to kill a Aryan then it would show the false propaganda Hitler had spread. His unquestionable support would have been challenged How can the people do anything if they don't wield the proper tools to assert themselves? China is still under it's same government, despite protests back in the 70s. America, France, and Russia on the other hand made government changes because of access to guns
1322
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:47:06 PM »
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
In studying the time and circumstance of the late 1700's, I believe the second amendment was more to protect America from foreign threats than governmental tyranny.
Well the British government was only foreign in the sense a sea separated it from America. They were still part of the British Empire and answered directly to the King and British government.
Umm... the bill of rights was written in 1791, Kinder. We were far past being British colonies at the time.
Yes, I know. BUT the Bill of Rights was written in response to British rule over the colonies
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. Note the notions of a militia defending the free state.
Plenty of nations had larger standing armies than the new and inexperienced United States. What better way to bolster numbers and ensure a reserve against foreign threats than to arm the populace?
Militias back in the Revolution included small groups of people working together, like the group from out west, I believe, who took out a Brit officer (or general). But right now I'm officially stating that I'm creating a militia, no problem with that SCOTUS also recently ruled that people don't have to be in militias in order to be gun owners and the 2A does state a two-prong description that guarantees not only militias, but ordinary people who don't want to be part of one
1323
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:42:46 PM »
Suppose I can get a go pro and jury rig it to my guns and film clips whenever I'm at the range >.>
1324
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:41:04 PM »
not dank enough
now?
now it's just racist
racism is NOT dank
stop being rasect 2 me :^(
1325
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:40:03 PM »
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
In studying the time and circumstance of the late 1700's, I believe the second amendment was more to protect America from foreign threats than governmental tyranny.
Well the British government was only foreign in the sense a sea separated it from America. They were still part of the British Empire and answered directly to the King and British government.
Umm... the bill of rights was written in 1791, Kinder. We were far past being British colonies at the time.
Yes, I know. BUT the Bill of Rights was written in response to British rule over the colonies
1326
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:39:19 PM »
So I because Hitler was brought up I'd just like to point out that gun rights were greatly expanded under his regime.
Except for Jews Gun ownership under Hitler is anything but fair to say the least. The only thing improved was gun regulations only applied to handguns and completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as the possession of ammunition included
1327
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:35:36 PM »
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
In studying the time and circumstance of the late 1700's, I believe the second amendment was more to protect America from foreign threats than governmental tyranny.
Well the British government was only foreign in the sense a sea separated it from America. They were still part of the British Empire and answered directly to the King and British government.
1328
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:34:05 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office?
These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
>Deflecting intensifies
Besides, this case could be a very huge step to looking at Federally legalizing marijuana if (and when, I polished my crystal ball) Colorado ends up winning.
Exactly how am I deflecting? You made a claim that I easily turned back around along with showing that this isn't about stepping on states rights, as the states don't have any authority above the Constitution
Deflecting my factual comment about heavily Conservative states that scream for state's rights start revolting against other states just because they progressed their own laws.
Besides, since his election Obama has made it adamantly clear that he will NOT seek federal action in states where marijuana is legalized which, especially if this case can make it out in favor of Colorado, can end up changing Federal Laws and Acts that currently prohibit marijuana use.
Spoiler though republicunts in congress will sit on their asses and refuse to do anything about that
That's nice and all, but states have rights based on the 10th Amendment. This is a manner on the Supremacy Cause, which gives Federal rights a boost over state rights in some aspects
Obama isn't above the Constitution; nobody is. The Constitution states the Supremacy Clause. That's end of the story and bring back my question: If a state legalized the killing of another, then would it still be wrong for another state to sue that state?
Did you just compare legalized murder to weed
Yes Both violate federal law and both are federal felonies; they can be compared
1329
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:33:05 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office?
These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
>Deflecting intensifies
Besides, this case could be a very huge step to looking at Federally legalizing marijuana if (and when, I polished my crystal ball) Colorado ends up winning.
Exactly how am I deflecting? You made a claim that I easily turned back around along with showing that this isn't about stepping on states rights, as the states don't have any authority above the Constitution
Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to regulate drugs and plants people possess and digest?
Supremacy Clause
1330
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:31:26 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office?
These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
>Deflecting intensifies
Besides, this case could be a very huge step to looking at Federally legalizing marijuana if (and when, I polished my crystal ball) Colorado ends up winning.
Exactly how am I deflecting? You made a claim that I easily turned back around along with showing that this isn't about stepping on states rights, as the states don't have any authority above the Constitution
Deflecting my factual comment about heavily Conservative states that scream for state's rights start revolting against other states just because they progressed their own laws.
Besides, since his election Obama has made it adamantly clear that he will NOT seek federal action in states where marijuana is legalized which, especially if this case can make it out in favor of Colorado, can end up changing Federal Laws and Acts that currently prohibit marijuana use.
Spoiler though republicunts in congress will sit on their asses and refuse to do anything about that
That's nice and all, but states have rights based on the 10th Amendment. This is a manner on the Supremacy Cause, which gives Federal rights a boost over state rights in some aspects Obama isn't above the Constitution; nobody is. The Constitution states the Supremacy Clause. That's end of the story and bring back my question: If a state legalized the killing of another, then would it still be wrong for another state to sue that state?
1331
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:28:33 PM »
not dank enough
now?
1332
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:25:18 PM »
Banning certain types of guns =/= taking your rights away.
It does though
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
Secondly, give an inch and a mile will be taken. Slowly the government will ban certain weapons until there is a total ban
The 2A was written centuries ago and is outdated. Civilians should not have a right to own assault rifles ad the like.
Lol is that the only excuse you can come up with? Can you even give legit reasons to your claims aside from "muh age"?
Tell the Jews in Nazi Germany that gun ownership was outdated, because it was gun control against them that led to the Holocaust. But if you're going to bring up age, then the Magna Carta should be abolished and let the monarchy have unlimited power
Do you even know what an assault rifle is anyway? Because an AR-15 is not one
Even if the jews had guns they still would have been rounded up. So that argument is pointless.
And your proof is where?
Do you have any proof that they still wouldn't have been rounded up?
It's rather common sense that governments listen to force. Ever hear of something called the French Revolution? American Revolution? October Revolution?
FUCKING LOL. You think Hitler gave a fucking shit about the filthy Jews? They were inferior, and he would laugh them off even if they were armed and tried to revolt. He just beat them to the punch before a prolonged fight could happen.
So I take it that you don't have anything worth while to share? It doesn't matter if Hitler thought they were inferior, because his "master race" would be humiliated when the people learn that some Jews were able to stand up and defeat them for violating their human rights; it would have caused the ordinary people to question the Nazis with "if Jews are able to stand against the Aryans, are they really that superior?"
1333
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:22:04 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office?
These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
>Deflecting intensifies
Besides, this case could be a very huge step to looking at Federally legalizing marijuana if (and when, I polished my crystal ball) Colorado ends up winning.
Exactly how am I deflecting? You made a claim that I easily turned back around along with showing that this isn't about stepping on states rights, as the states don't have any authority above the Constitution
1334
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:19:10 PM »
:^) 
1335
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:18:33 PM »
Banning certain types of guns =/= taking your rights away.
It does though
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
Secondly, give an inch and a mile will be taken. Slowly the government will ban certain weapons until there is a total ban
The 2A was written centuries ago and is outdated. Civilians should not have a right to own assault rifles ad the like.
Lol is that the only excuse you can come up with? Can you even give legit reasons to your claims aside from "muh age"?
Tell the Jews in Nazi Germany that gun ownership was outdated, because it was gun control against them that led to the Holocaust. But if you're going to bring up age, then the Magna Carta should be abolished and let the monarchy have unlimited power
Do you even know what an assault rifle is anyway? Because an AR-15 is not one
Even if the jews had guns they still would have been rounded up. So that argument is pointless.
And your proof is where?
Do you have any proof that they still wouldn't have been rounded up?
It's rather common sense that governments listen to force. Ever hear of something called the French Revolution? American Revolution? October Revolution?
1336
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:10:59 PM »
Banning certain types of guns =/= taking your rights away.
It does though
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
Secondly, give an inch and a mile will be taken. Slowly the government will ban certain weapons until there is a total ban
The 2A was written centuries ago and is outdated. Civilians should not have a right to own assault rifles ad the like.
Lol is that the only excuse you can come up with? Can you even give legit reasons to your claims aside from "muh age"?
Tell the Jews in Nazi Germany that gun ownership was outdated, because it was gun control against them that led to the Holocaust. But if you're going to bring up age, then the Magna Carta should be abolished and let the monarchy have unlimited power
Do you even know what an assault rifle is anyway? Because an AR-15 is not one
Even if the jews had guns they still would have been rounded up. So that argument is pointless.
And your proof is where?
1337
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:06:09 PM »
Banning certain types of guns =/= taking your rights away.
It does though
For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns?
Secondly, give an inch and a mile will be taken. Slowly the government will ban certain weapons until there is a total ban
The 2A was written centuries ago and is outdated. Civilians should not have a right to own assault rifles ad the like.
Lol is that the only excuse you can come up with? Can you even give legit reasons to your claims aside from "muh age"? Tell the Jews in Nazi Germany that gun ownership was outdated, because it was gun control against them that led to the Holocaust. But if you're going to bring up age, then the Magna Carta should be abolished and let the monarchy have unlimited power Do you even know what an assault rifle is anyway? Because an AR-15 is not one
1338
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:03:20 PM »
But how can I get the in-game stuff if I was never able to play multiplayer?
1339
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:01:01 PM »
Banning certain types of guns =/= taking your rights away.
It does though For one, the 2A protects against a tyrannical government. How do you expect civilians to fight against terror with 9mm handguns? Secondly, give an inch and a mile will be taken. Slowly the government will ban certain weapons until there is a total ban; just like the UK. But Farge has the common sense to repeal certain gun restrictions if he was hopefully ever elected
1340
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:55:40 PM »
Not matter what fear-mongering discriminating gun laws you pass, innovation will always be around the corner waiting to take the stage and one up you all. We've all seen the NY legal AR-15 modern sporting rifle  Now here comes a pump-action sporting rifle chambered in .223/5.56 that accepts standard 30 round capacity AR-15 magazines. And as far I can tell, it's perfectly legal in draconian anti-Constitution states. So I ask, why must we waste handicapping one right? If we're going to handicap the Second Amendment, then we should handicap ALL Amendments
1341
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:49:34 PM »
Let me restate that obesity, and it's effects, should NEVER be considered to be a disability. A person can't help that they're in a wheel chair, but a person at 300 pounds can help themselves by going to the gym and working it off. They wouldn't have problems if they took self-responsibility instead of placing the blame on employers. This is just as dumb as the lawsuit over hot coffee from McDonalds
1342
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:47:06 PM »
Oh look, it's the Republicans that scream about state's rights...fighting against state's rights...
gg
You mean how Democrats scream about government not getting involved in the bedroom, but will turn around and get involved in the doctor's office? These states have very valid claims with supporting the Supremacy Clause at hand. If Colorado had legalized murder, would it still be wrong for Oklahoma to sue?
1343
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:44:34 PM »
but in the Black nation of Haiti So now it's racist for blacks to kill blacks? Fucking pathetic.
1344
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:42:23 PM »
Happy with or couldn't care less:
-Conservative
-Classical Liberal
-Fiscal Conservative
-Conservative Libertarian
-Libertarian
-Monetarist
-Social Liberal
-Protectionist
Not happy with
-Theoconservative
-Cultural Conservative
-Monarchist
-Minarchist
-Voluntarist
-Mordern Liberal
-Marxian Socialist
-Anarcho-Communist
-Stalinist
-Feminism
-Keynesian
-Democrat (Party)
-Democrat (somebody who supports democracy)
I'm a person that supports a Republic, not a Democracy as it's essentially a dictatorship by the majority. The U.S for certain isn't a Democracy, nor was it founded on Democracy ideals; it was founded on the ideas of a Republic
1345
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:18:14 PM »
Okay - considering the two of you cannot play nice (Again!), looks like we need some time outs.
Oh, so bans only come when I step in?
1346
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:16:21 PM »
I've reported Challenger multiple times for multiple rule violations. I also reported two posts that violate the Serious rules, which should have given him a ban earlier today. Leaving him to go un-ban is a fucking pathetic disgrace and shows that certain members can get away with shit than others. I'm fucking tired of it. Do your jobs and ban him.
1347
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:14:00 PM »
Chally, you know better by now.
Don't do it again.
Of course I know better.
But if somebody's gonna set a joke up perfectly, I'm making that joke. :^)
Nope
1348
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:11:39 PM »
Chally, you know better by now.
Don't do it again.
2nd time he's done it today, in serious. Ban him. Now.
1349
« on: December 18, 2014, 04:03:39 PM »
 Really, AP courses are highly overrated
1350
« on: December 18, 2014, 04:00:58 PM »
For my dad  For my mom 
Pages: 1 ... 434445 4647 ... 243
|
Show Posts