TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

And the Second Amendment in its entirety:

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.

"Militia"

flan

---

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms is separate from the Militia. Two distinct rights in the Second Amendment. 

---

 But it is because a militia is important that the people can bear arms.

The country is not the same as it was when this was written.

flan

---

The country isn't the same for the First Amendment as well. So, should we take away those rights as well?

The right to bear arms is to protect citizens from a dictatorship. History proves that fact. An unarmed population is subjugated (Bolsheviks and Nazi's disarmed the public), an armed population is free. 

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

---

 You don't seem to be.  If you are aware, then why bring up such nonsense?

---

 Too many people forget the ORIGIN of the amendment.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

---

 You don't seem to be.  If you are aware, then why bring up such nonsense?

---

 Too many people forget the ORIGIN of the amendment.

flan

---

 You, among them.  It was NEVER a question throughout our nations history that individuals had the right to arms until late in the 20th century.

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

---

 You don't seem to be.  If you are aware, then why bring up such nonsense?

---

 Too many people forget the ORIGIN of the amendment.

flan

---

 You, among them.  It was NEVER a question throughout our nations history that individuals had the right to arms until late in the 20th century.

---

 Because we actually have laws and a police force, unlike the new country America WAS.

flan

---

 Not all of us live in cities  where you can call  the police  and they will be there in matter of mins. It takes 45 mins. Where I live.

Insults are okay now? When did that rule change, LL?

flan

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

---

 You don't seem to be.  If you are aware, then why bring up such nonsense?

---

 Too many people forget the ORIGIN of the amendment.

flan

---

 You, among them.  It was NEVER a question throughout our nations history that individuals had the right to arms until late in the 20th century.

---

 Because we actually have laws and a police force, unlike the new country America WAS.

flan

---

 So what?  we had those things then, also, but are you going to throw out the first amendment, too?

---

 Really? The "wild West" had that name for a reason.

Why would I throw out the First Amendment?

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

---

 You don't seem to be.  If you are aware, then why bring up such nonsense?

---

 Too many people forget the ORIGIN of the amendment.

flan

---

 You, among them.  It was NEVER a question throughout our nations history that individuals had the right to arms until late in the 20th century.

---

 Because we actually have laws and a police force, unlike the new country America WAS.

flan

---

 So what?  we had those things then, also, but are you going to throw out the first amendment, too?

---

 Really? The "wild West" had that name for a reason.

Why would I throw out the First Amendment?

flan

---

 First of all, you watch too much TV.  Second, the "Wild West" such as it was didn't really happen until nearly a century after the nation was founded.  Third, why do you want to get rid of any amendments?  They are all equally important.

And in other news, Obama is planning on visiting Roseberg, but they don't want him there. They say he is grandstanding (which he is) and he's using this for political purposes (which he is). I hope no one there meets with him.

Obama was here a couple of months ago and our governor and the mayor of the city he visited refused to meet with him. One would think he would get a clue.

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

This tired, old, false argument, again? It has long been established both legislatively and through the courts that the 2nd amendment gives individual citizens the right to arms apart from any militia.

---

 I am well aware of subsequent decisions.

flan

---

 You don't seem to be.  If you are aware, then why bring up such nonsense?

---

 Too many people forget the ORIGIN of the amendment.

flan

---

 You, among them.  It was NEVER a question throughout our nations history that individuals had the right to arms until late in the 20th century.

---

 Because we actually have laws and a police force, unlike the new country America WAS.

flan

---

 So what?  we had those things then, also, but are you going to throw out the first amendment, too?

---

 Really? The "wild West" had that name for a reason.

Why would I throw out the First Amendment?

flan

---

 First of all, you watch too much TV.  Second, the "Wild West" such as it was didn't really happen until nearly a century after the nation was founded.  Third, why do you want to get rid of any amendments?  They are all equally important.

---

 I do know American history, husker. You stated that we had laws & a police force & I cited an exception.

flan

 

---

 You don't know history.  Your "exception" isn't really an exception, and to the extent it was, it was not even conceived of when the amendment was written.  If you actually knew sometching about history, you wouldn't be trying to make such a false argument.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Tuesday 6th of October 2015 12:17:14 PM

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

Ronald Reagan

---

 Wise words

There is no way that someone who ends damn near every post with "..lol" deserves to be taken seriously. You might have semi-reasonable opinions, but that's so damn distracting. Why do you do that? Do you laugh out loud when you talk in real life too? Annoying.

MyNameIsJoe wrote:

---

There is no way that someone who ends damn near every post with "..lol" deserves to be taken seriously. You might have semi-reasonable opinions, but that's so damn distracting. Why do you do that? Do you laugh out loud when you talk in real life too? Annoying.

---

 flan signs her name every time. Do you think she does that in real life? You write ludicrous posts. Do you talk like that in real life?

I have already explained the reason WHY I sign my name to my posts.

flan

Oh, good gosh, "nanny nanny boo boo" is about to drive me nuts.

flan327 wrote:

---

I have already explained the reason WHY I sign my name to my posts.

flan

---

 Your explanation no longer makes sense as the poster you did it for does not even post here. I think now it is just an affectation.

just Czech wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I have already explained the reason WHY I sign my name to my posts.

flan

---

 Your explanation no longer makes sense as the poster you did it for does not even post here. I think now it is just an affectation.

---

Oh, stop it. Flan has signed her name for at least 8 years. Drop it. The nattering is childish behavior, IMHO. 

---

 Yes please stop.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I wasn't complaining about flan signing her name only using it as an example. I guess you'd all like to tell me how and what I should post.

---

...as if you don't? 

MyNameIsJoe wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

There is no way to take someone seriously who hasn't even bothered put up an Avatar. I mean if you don't like her posting style, then I would guess you don't have to read it. At least with Avatars it allows me to quickly see who is posting and scroll on by if I so choose!

---

 Karl doesn't have one.

Burns doesn't have one.

Husker doesn't have one.

I'm folowing the trend.

---

To me, that is logical.

I do not have a problem with anyone not having an avatar. I don't understand why it would be a big deal either. 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

It's nit picking.

Joe started with Tinydancer.

That started the whole thing.

---

 And she gives as good as she gets.

flan

It would have been more appropriate to private message. Bad choice on my part.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I wasn't complaining about flan signing her name only using it as an example. I guess you'd all like to tell me how and what I should post.

---

...as if you don't? 

---

 As if I don't what? Tell people how to post? Example please.

---

When you nag someone to answer a question, that is telling someone how to post.