Reply #3

In the discussion thread: The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment [View all]

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 05:41 PM

samsingh (10,337 posts)

3. and the crap from Charlton Heston holding up his rifle

and saying he believes in the Constitution. He never did. He only believed in the special interests who have twisted wording to suit their immoral drive for profits and other goals. I especially appreciate the wording around the purpose of conceiled handguns and what could be their only purpose. Imagine what the founders would think about assault rifles.

btw - shouldn't everyone be in a militia and follow militia rules as per the second amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

183 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment [View all]	samsingh	Aug 2012	OP
Speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of this Court	COLGATE4	Aug 2012	#1
and the crap from Charlton Heston holding up his rifle	samsingh	Aug 2012	#3
You do realize that Charlton Heston was big civil rights supporter?	Equate	Aug 2012	#18
yeah like a 100 years ago. he changed badly.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#20
You couldn't be more wrong	Equate	Aug 2012	#28
only if they are well regulated.....	samsingh	Aug 2012	#31
Sorry	Equate	Aug 2012	#41
Please learn English grammar.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#42
the writing is clear - 'a well regulated militia .....'	samsingh	Aug 2012	#54
You left out this part	Equate	Aug 2012	#64
we need to be regulated though.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#96
there are gun regulations	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#100
something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#104
You were asked a question, one that I would also like to hear the answer to.	oneshooter	Aug 2012	#110
I'd like to hear that answer as well. n/t	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#111
what part of: something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#116
depends	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#128
nothing will eliminate it.	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#120
why does the US have more gun violence than other industrialized countries?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#121
I find the "industrialized" kind of cherry picking	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#134
my question is basic: "why does the US have more gun related deaths than any other industrialized	samsingh	Aug 2012	#131
basic question with no simple answer	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#136
we agree on that	samsingh	Aug 2012	#149
Regulated meant trained, not restricted back then. nt	rDigital	Aug 2012	#175
to regulate as in to make regular would still have the same meaning now as it did then --	Tuesday Afternoon	Aug 2012	#179
A dependent clause explains but does not filter the independent clause. Please learn English. N/T	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#81
i know English very well.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#97
you're trying to tell me that clause a does not impact clause b?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#99
English grammar lesson:	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#113
but the dependent clause is not the independent clause	samsingh	Aug 2012	#124
english grammar lesson CONTINUED	samsingh	Aug 2012	#150
Same lesson continued:	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#152
there can be no insurance payout without the accident. That's the point i'm trying to make.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#153
But your sentence didn't say that.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#162
Please diagram the sentence...	PavePusher	Aug 2012	#88
the sentence refers to a well-regulated militia. this cannot be separated from what follows	samsingh	Aug 2012	#98
but it means well equipped	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#102
In his dissent in Heller...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#106
There should have been a period and two distinct sentences	samsingh	Aug 2012	#107
It's not optional.	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#109
sounds revisionist to me.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#115
Ever use you right...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#117
why did you introduce the free speech on the internet into the discussion?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#123
To provide an example of a right...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#126
in the free speech example	samsingh	Aug 2012	#127
yes there are sensible boundaries	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#132
okay	samsingh	Aug 2012	#133
thanks for the well considered reply	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#135
Has there been a single	Jenoch	Aug 2012	#140
no, but it would be a red flag and provide an opportunity for prevention	samsingh	Aug 2012	#146
To prevent what,	Jenoch	Aug 2012	#182
you know reduce events like massacres, innocent people getting killed	samsingh	Aug 2012	#183
my replies	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#142
thanks for your reasonable answers.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#147
I have an issue...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#159
would you have...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#178
Some answers:	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#151
Actually, you can spread hate speech, but you can't incite to violence. N/T	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#139
and rightly so. but there is a limit.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#154
Where is that limit?	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#163
There is no ambiguity in the wording,	pipoman	Aug 2012	#176
Very good question. I've addressed this before.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#177
his stance of civil rights never changed	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#29
How old are you? Maybe 17? n/t	PavePusher	Aug 2012	#87
wow - you guys get really insulting when someone questions your logic	samsingh	Aug 2012	#125
It speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of the professor or of the author of the OP's source. n/t	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#22
What pray tell is dishonest about what the professor says?	COLGATE4	Aug 2012	#155
First, let's be clear. I did not say that the professor was intellectually dishonest:	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#160
Good article	bongbong	Aug 2012	#2
it clearly does	samsingh	Aug 2012	#129
Bullshit.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#4
i don't think so. you may not want to believe it, but this is true.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#6
No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#12
lies like those perpetuated by the NRA?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#16
Impressive rebuttal, but the NRA is beside the point of the post you answered. n/t	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#25
the post refers to changes in the 1970s which were definitely supported by the NRA	samsingh	Aug 2012	#30
Actually, post 12, the one you replied to, says nothing whatsoever about the 1970's	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#55
in the OP	samsingh	Aug 2012	#130
Read the post I linked to and make a cogent response and we can talk. n/t	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#14
why don't you do that with my post?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#19
There's very little substance, but OK.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#50
how is it that everything that does not support your position is a lie. Burger lied?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#53
Standard for gun-relgionists	bongbong	Aug 2012	#62
No, I wasn't saying that Burger lied. He may have simply been misinformed.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#70
For a true perspective from an intellectual committed to freedom...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#75
i know history as well. It seems to me that you're using observations as facts when they	samsingh	Aug 2012	#101
how much history do you know?	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#103
University level American History, European History, Russian History.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#105
Russian history,	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#137
I know why!	bongbong	Aug 2012	#158
you obviously missed the point	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#166
I got the point	bongbong	Aug 2012	#167
First, I don't doubt that you know history. You may very well know more history than I do.	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#165
Thje 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments....	Adrahil	Aug 2012	#180
LOL. "The professor is misrepresenting". Boy if I had a nickel... nt	DanTex	Aug 2012	#36
Lying again?	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#79
Georgia banned handguns and concealed carry	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#5
so overturning it again would be fine then.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#7
no, because it was based on the second amendment	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#11
in that case	samsingh	Aug 2012	#13
because the collective right theory did not exist	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#23
My problem with the state of things is that the NRA will not.......	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#8
i'd be fine with that - but the NRA will not be.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#9
good point, but	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#17
you are so wrong. first off, who's asking for prohibition? i'm not.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#27
And there is the rub. The NRA believes more guns are the answer.	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#33
Most of the money comes from members.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#37
NRA backers	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#44
And they receive even more millions from members.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#48
once a year	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#43
OK, what are you asking for then? Please be specific. NT	Trunk Monkey	Aug 2012	#92
Exactly my point. You are afraid to discuss it because.....	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#32
Nobody is stopping anything from being debated.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#40
you didn't read it closely did you?	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#67
If you want pro-2nd	Missycim	Aug 2012	#144
How about national concealed carry permit reciprocity	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#156
no rocket launcher please	Missycim	Aug 2012	#157
Rocket launchers are legal, it is the rockets that are controlled.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#164
That's because what you are asking for is impossible.	Atypical Liberal	Aug 2012	#47
its a joke to think that armed civilians can stop any nation powerful enough to defeat the US	samsingh	Aug 2012	#51
Really?	Atypical Liberal	Aug 2012	#118
very circular logic - you stated the purpose was to protect against foreign aggressors.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#122
Foreign and domestic.	Atypical Liberal	Aug 2012	#145
Maybe a reasonable solution is to set up a televised national commission, of sorts, to	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#72
you make sense but I must correct one thing	gejohnston	Aug 2012	#77
For want of calling them fashionable pretend military style hunting/target rifles. n/t	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#78
If by discussion you mean legislation that bans some firearms and/or their accessories, then	aikoaiko	Aug 2012	#82
If I understand you right. You want preconditions before...	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#89
I would be open to a televised discussion	Equate	Aug 2012	#93
I think, knowing that they were being televised, they would....	Bonhomme Richard	Aug 2012	#108
What I would like is for discussion to happen before Shumer tacked on a magazine ban to a bill.	aikoaiko	Aug 2012	#95
I wouldn't discuss it at all	Missycim	Aug 2012	#143
And yet Constitutional scholors like Lawrence Tribe disagrees with	Equate	Aug 2012	#10
Like those who supported the elimination of other civil liberties	aikoaiko	Aug 2012	#15
i don't think so.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#21
The proof is in the pudding	Equate	Aug 2012	#34
"losing side of history"	DanTex	Aug 2012	#45
I really don't care what other nations think of our 2A	Equate	Aug 2012	#46
Yes, that was my point.	DanTex	Aug 2012	#49
Nice job putting words in my mouth.	Equate	Aug 2012	#61
Religion	bongbong	Aug 2012	#65
I was wondering if...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#66
OK!	bongbong	Aug 2012	#168
I thought you would...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#170
Learn to read	bongbong	Aug 2012	#172
right	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#173
Yes	bongbong	Aug 2012	#174
Whatever you say	Equate	Aug 2012	#69
LOL	bongbong	Aug 2012	#90
There are fledgling gun-right organizations and movements in other countries.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#52
Yeah, but they don't make any progress, and one major reason for that is the US.	DanTex	Aug 2012	#63
They are new, and growing.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#83
That's only part of the picture.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#24
wanting gun laws and sane gun control does not make one anti-gun	samsingh	Aug 2012	#26
"Sane gun control" is code for gun prohibition.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#35
that's such an emotional over-reaction.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#56
Actually, the city supported by the Brady Campaign and numerous anti-gun groups and luminaries	TPaine7	Aug 2012	#74
Experience, not emotion. I gave you the example of HR 1022.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#84
As opposed to Pro-Choice?	rDigital	Aug 2012	#38
as long as you don't infringe on my personal safety by supporting a culture that allows maniacs to	samsingh	Aug 2012	#58
Your straw-man's on fire	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#60
We already have a plethoria of gun laws	Equate	Aug 2012	#39
i guess we need more because they're not working	samsingh	Aug 2012	#59
they're not working because they're not enforced	Equate	Aug 2012	#68
BTW....	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#71
I knew Justice Stevens did	Equate	Aug 2012	#73
You're very welcome	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#76
Stevens agrees 2nd is individual right? Not exactly.	russ1943	Aug 2012	#161
The actual language used by Stevens in his dissent can be found here:	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#171
Gun violence has been decreasing for the past 18 years.	GreenStormCloud	Aug 2012	#85
The 2A grants nothing. Article is fundamentally flawed.	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Aug 2012	#57
Because Strict Gun Laws Work SO Well in Chicago and NYC...	liberallibral	Aug 2012	#80
Wow!	bongbong	Aug 2012	#91
it actually makes me want to cry - yes, we starting bailing water when the boat was	samsingh	Aug 2012	#119
So what is the author Fareed Zakaria's recommendation? Call people un-American and insult them?	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#86
why don't you ask him?	samsingh	Aug 2012	#112
Earlier, when you were asked about your age, you said (#125) "actualy 17 is a compliment."	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#138
Never give up basic human rights...	ileus	Aug 2012	#94
yes trivialize death	samsingh	Aug 2012	#114
There is no Constitutional protection	xxenderwigginxx	Aug 2012	#141
there are many debates going about what the constitution protects and does not protect.	samsingh	Aug 2012	#148
hey... why not make cars illegal?	Adrahil	Aug 2012	#181
It now turns out that the author is accused of related plagerism and has "apologized profusely for	AnotherMcIntosh	Aug 2012	#169

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.