Jump to content





Photo
* * * - - 1 votes

Greg Hardy Has a Collection of 25-30 Firearms


  • Please log in to reply
294 replies to this topic

#229 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,942
  • Reputation: 9,680
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 May 2014 - 10:33 PM

Excellent! You are a full-fledge college educated idiot. So "enlightened" that you consistently miss the forest for the trees. Having graduated from a midwestern university, I wasn't constantly bombarded with the propaganda that spewed from the mouths of professors that had relocated to the south to convert the mind-set of the common southerner during the fight for civil rights. Now granted, not everyone deserves to carry a firearm, however, myself and many other educated individuals haven't out thought ourselves to the point we have lost awareness of that history repeating itself thing, plus we also understand that the urge to obtain power is a biological trait of man....biological meaning it can never be changed.

In order to garner optimum power, one must weaken his opponents(I.e., me and you). Some of us seek acceptance into their tired "enlightenment" rhetoric and others use deductive reasoning through societal cycles to conclude that man has never changed at the core and never will, therefore, revolution is a must. Violent revolutions always garner REAL change.

Lets not manipulate the Constitution. Take it for what it says, for spin has been a tool used by man since the beginning of historical recording

 

I don't even remember what my college professor had to say about the 2nd amendment, and my choice of college has nothing to do with the conversation.  But I suppose if I have to be an idiot, being a college educated one is better than any.

 

Who do you think is trying to gain optimus prime... I mean optimum power?  I'm curious who you think the threat of gaining too much power is.

 

The only people that have manipulated the Constitution is the NRA and gun advocates.

 

If gun advocates want to honor the Constitution, if they choose to exercise their right to own a gun, they should have to volunteer themselves for military duty whenever called upon.  At least that way they are actually honoring the purposes of the 2nd amendment.



#230 Gin and Juice

Gin and Juice

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,805
  • Reputation: 430
HUDDLER

Posted 14 May 2014 - 10:56 PM

I don't even remember what my college professor had to say about the 2nd amendment, and my choice of college has nothing to do with the conversation. But I suppose if I have to be an idiot, being a college educated one is better than any.

Who do you think is trying to gain optimus prime... I mean optimum power? I'm curious who you think the threat of gaining too much power is.

The only people that have manipulated the Constitution is the NRA and gun advocates.

If gun advocates want to honor the Constitution, if they choose to exercise their right to own a gun, they should have to volunteer themselves for military duty whenever called upon. At least that way they are actually honoring the purposes of the 2nd amendment.


Ahhhh, the classic bait into "Obama is the anti-Christ." Not going there, nor do I even think close to those lines. I ask you this, in a revolution, who would we(obvious bad guys in your comic) be fighting? So is it called to fight for a civil cause or government duty? I have no problem picking up arms for my country when pertaining to hostile outsiders.

Look, I collect because of guys like you. To dumb to see the black market world of guns that would only grow stronger if arms are outlawed, but yet smart enough to realize that a gun free world is indeed a safer world. However, gun free will never happen. I collect in the present day to pass on to my children and grandchildren. The feel good liberal agenda will short term succeed and socialism will start rearing its head. Our youth's sense of entitlement is too strong. As a person that must hire a workforce, I have been utterly disappointed with the quality of workers I get for 27/hr. Too proud for a shovel and to unmotivated to grasp 2003 technology

#231 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 7,402
  • Reputation: 1,138
  • LocationGalveston
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 May 2014 - 11:16 PM

I have a very nice collection of firearms.

But I wouldn't have more than a few on the bed at any one time.

Edited by pantherclaw, 14 May 2014 - 11:17 PM.


#232 CackalackCat

CackalackCat

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 14-March 10
  • PipPip
  • posts: 25
  • Reputation: 3
ROOKIE

Posted 14 May 2014 - 11:20 PM

 

The only people that have manipulated the Constitution is the NRA and gun advocates.

 

If gun advocates want to honor the Constitution, if they choose to exercise their right to own a gun, they should have to volunteer themselves for military duty whenever called upon.  At least that way they are actually honoring the purposes of the 2nd amendment.

 

Wow! For you to say something like that just proves what a good Marxist you are.



#233 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,942
  • Reputation: 9,680
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 May 2014 - 11:34 PM

Wow! For you to say something like that just proves what a good Marxist you are.

 

Unless Marxists framed to Constitution I disagree, I am talking about honoring the 2nd amendment for what its intentions clearly were



#234 ClawOn

ClawOn

    Bringer of Dong

  • Joined: 02-February 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 299
  • Reputation: 34
HUDDLER

Posted 14 May 2014 - 11:45 PM

I have no idea how the legal process or investigation will turn out.  Here's what I am confident of:

 

40 year old Greg Hardy to 25 year old Greg Hardy: "Dude, you were an idiot.  Glad it didn't turn out worse."



#235 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:00 AM

Unless Marxists framed to Constitution I disagree, I am talking about honoring the 2nd amendment for what its intentions clearly were


Pretty sure the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment believed in the right to protect ones property/family, hunt, etc.....as well as form a militia.

Those are basics that have been part of this country from the beginning.

#236 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,123
  • Reputation: 15,620
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:01 AM

I have no idea how the legal process or investigation will turn out.  Here's what I am confident of:

 

40 year old Greg Hardy to 25 year old Greg Hardy: "Dude, you were an idiot.  Glad it didn't turn out worse."

 

To be fair, that's most of us :unsure:

 

(though the severity of the situations obviously varies).
 



#237 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,942
  • Reputation: 9,680
SUPPORTER

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:01 AM

I will just leave this response from back in February in a thread in the Tinderbox.  Doesn't directly answer all the points some of you made, but it is too late in the evening to type up a full proper response to G&J and others:

 

 

Yes I have read that, and have read everything from the Federalist Papers to the Anti-Federalist papers along with other writings from that time, and have a certified print of the Senate's original mark up of the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd amendment was about military service, and was in response to the ability for States to raise militias for self defense against other States invading, protecting them against the Indians, and protecting their sovereignty against the federal government's proposed new found power to raise an army with the President as commander and chief.

 

One of the more persuasive arguments by the anti-federalists when they spoke out against the ratification of the Constitution, was there was major concern that the new federal government gave themselves the ability to create a federal Army and Navy, as well as have the President the authority of commander and chief over the State militias.  They viewed it as a threat to State sovereignty, and was concerned that there was no provisions in the Constitution assuring the States that the federal government would not have standing armies and navies in time of peace.  The proponents of the Constitution expressed that they felt it was blasphemous to suggest the federal government would ever have standing armies in times of peace because the only military available was the State militias, and the authority would only be exercised if Congress declared war.

 

To quell this concern the 2nd amendment was added to the Bill of Rights in order to assure the States that the federal government couldn't create laws to attempt to disarm the State militias in case they needed it for self defense, whether it be another State invading them, or Indians, or even the federal government trying to overthrow them for the purposes of absolute rule. 

 

The militias that were raised by the individual states, were not allowed to be standing militias in time of peace, and were comprised of the people who volunteered if they were called upon. It says in Article 1 Section 10 that "No state shall, without consent from Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit delay" So in order for the State to have an armed military for self defense they had to have an armed populous of volunteers that could be called by the government for military service.

The Constitution mentions the State militias in Article 2 Section 2 "The President shall be commander and chief of the Army and Navy, and the militias of the several States"

There was not a standing US Army until after the Civil War

 At that time the entire military was comprised of ordinary people who would volunteer in times of war. The only way the 2nd amendment would even be applicable in today's world is if the US military was decommissioned and people were compelled into service in times of war.

Basically, the 2nd amendment was in the Bill of Rights to give the Federal and State governments the ability to raise military forces when needed for war, not so the populous could fight the federal government.

When you read a lot of the papers of the time, many anti-federalists used the phrase "the people" and "individual states" almost interchangeably. They felt the states had a better grasp of their people than a federal government could. The amendment was not for the general population to be able to fight off a tyrannical federal government but for the individual sovereign State to be able to defend itself against a tyrannical federal government.

That happened in 1860's during the Civil War. A war the southern states lost. Before the Civil War there was no standing US army. Now there are federal military bases in all 50 states and those states no longer have any real State sponsored militias. You could make the argument that since the Civil War we have been under a Federal Government military occupation. That is why, I say the amendment became obsolete after the Civil War. There is now a standing US Army even in times of peace.

We no longer need an armed population in order to raise a military. We have a standing military.

In case you still don't think the Amendment was put in there for the ability to raise armies consider the original text of the Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person"

I think that it makes clear that the intention of the Amendment was to provide the State and Federal governments with the ability to raise armies, not so the general population could fight the government.          

 

  


Edited by teeray, 15 May 2014 - 12:04 AM.


#238 CackalackCat

CackalackCat

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 14-March 10
  • PipPip
  • posts: 25
  • Reputation: 3
ROOKIE

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:02 AM

Unless Marxists framed to Constitution I disagree, I am talking about honoring the 2nd amendment for what its intentions clearly were

 

What part are you talking about? The well regulated militia part? What about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part? I'm not trying to argue we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

In 1963 The Communist Party of the U.S.A wrote a list on 45 goals to turn America to a communist country. Goal 29 is as follows:

 

 

29. Discredit the American constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

 

 

That is what's being said by a lot of liberals today and the list goes on and on.  So in my crazy, redneck, gun owning view. Liberals today are just later-day communist. To each their own I guess.

 



#239 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,942
  • Reputation: 9,680
SUPPORTER

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:07 AM

What part are you talking about? The well regulated militia part? What about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part? I'm not trying to argue we will just have to agree to disagree.

In 1963 The Communist Party of the U.S.A wrote a list on 45 goals to turn America to a communist country. Goal 29 is as follows:


29. Discredit the American constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.


That is what's being said by a lot of liberals today and the list goes on and on. So in my crazy, redneck, gun owning view. Liberals today are just later-day communist. To each their own I guess.


see my above post for why I feel that way

Edit: To answer your question quickly, the right of the people to bear arms was because there was no standing army, so an armed populous was necessary to raise militaries for the individual State defense, and the nation's defense.

I wasn't until the Civil War that we had a standing US army even in times of peace, so the necessity to have an armed populous in order to raise a militia was no longer necessary.

That is why I say the 2nd amendment for all intents and purposes became obsolete after the Civil War.

Those wanting to fight the federal government are 150 years too late

Edited by teeray, 15 May 2014 - 01:14 AM.


#240 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,942
  • Reputation: 9,680
SUPPORTER

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:17 AM

BTW I enjoy the debate, so I appreciate your opinions.

 

Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court agrees with you.  But after really digging in and studying this on my own I tend to agree with Justice Steven's dissenting opinion 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users