Talking with a fellow tonight who was obvioulsy a metrosexual liberal. He gave me the standard talking point that the founding fathers could not have ever dreamed of guns like the ar15. So the 2A obviously doesn't apply to that kind of gun. I let him ramble on and then I.countered him with well then the founding fathers could not have envisioned communication devices like computers or the internet and therefore the first amendment doesn't apply to them and we should outlaw the internet and personal computers. For safety. He looked at me and said a computer and the internet have never killed anyone. I said neither have my ar15s. He said but some people use them to kill with and therefore no body but police and military should have them, it just makes sense.
I smiled and said to him well then likewise it would make sense to only allow government agencies to have computers and the internet.. he said but I have the right to free speech and free press. I looked at him and said yep, but if we only let govt have those things then pedofiles can't UAE the.internet to prey on children. His reply was but that's such a small number of peole that do that. I said yep, probably just about as small as the number of ars used in.shootings. he looked all quizzical and finally said I've never thought of it that way. And that suddenly he didntbtake gouging people of their rightsade as much sense as he once did.
Never happened without video and audio.
;-)
nice work.
It was so cold here in town yesterday, that two liberal dhimmicrats were spotted with their hands in their OWN pockets.
If the internet hasn't ever killed anyone, what about all the people (mainly kids, mind you) that have been bullied on the internet and have resorted to suicide. The kid last year that was taped on the internet having a homosexual encounter and later killed himself for example, the kid that taped it is being prosecuted with a hate crime. Maybe microsoft should be sued, just like these idiots trying to sue the gun makers when there products are used in a shooting.
Scout, that was the general argument I threw back at him.
Unbelievable
, to bad you couldn't throw a blade back at him too and give him a flying vasectomy.
Gunner
If the internet hasn't ever killed anyone, what about all the people (mainly kids, mind you) that have been bullied on the internet and have resorted to suicide. The kid last year that was taped on the internet having a homosexual encounter and later killed himself for example, the kid that taped it is being prosecuted with a hate crime. Maybe microsoft should be sued, just like these idiots trying to sue the gun makers when there products are used in a shooting.
Just like the fat lady suing Betty Crocker for making her fat.
Or Larry the cable guy suing Hustler mag for giving him carpel tunnel.
Gunner
Talking with a fellow tonight who was obvioulsy a metrosexual liberal. He gave me the standard talking point that the founding fathers could not have ever dreamed of guns like the ar15. So the 2A obviously doesn't apply to that kind of gun. I let him ramble on and then I.countered him with well then the founding fathers could not have envisioned communication devices like computers or the internet and therefore the first amendment doesn't apply to them and we should outlaw the internet and personal computers. For safety. He looked at me and said a computer and the internet have never killed anyone. I said neither have my ar15s. He said but some people use them to kill with and therefore no body but police and military should have them, it just makes sense.
I smiled and said to him well then likewise it would make sense to only allow government agencies to have computers and the internet.. he said but I have the right to free speech and free press. I looked at him and said yep, but if we only let govt have those things then pedofiles can't UAE the.internet to prey on children. His reply was but that's such a small number of peole that do that. I said yep, probably just about as small as the number of ars used in.shootings. he looked all quizzical and finally said I've never thought of it that way. And that suddenly he didntbtake gouging people of their rightsade as much sense as he once did.
I am surprised you could keep him from going hysterical long enough to get your point across logically .
Talking with a fellow tonight who was obvioulsy a metrosexual liberal. He gave me the standard talking point that the founding fathers could not have ever dreamed of guns like the ar15. So the 2A obviously doesn't apply to that kind of gun. I let him ramble on and then I.countered him with well then the founding fathers could not have envisioned communication devices like computers or the internet and therefore the first amendment doesn't apply to them and we should outlaw the internet and personal computers. For safety. He looked at me and said a computer and the internet have never killed anyone. I said neither have my ar15s. He said but some people use them to kill with and therefore no body but police and military should have them, it just makes sense.
I smiled and said to him well then likewise it would make sense to only allow government agencies to have computers and the internet.. he said but I have the right to free speech and free press. I looked at him and said yep, but if we only let govt have those things then pedofiles can't UAE the.internet to prey on children. His reply was but that's such a small number of peole that do that. I said yep, probably just about as small as the number of ars used in.shootings. he looked all quizzical and finally said I've never thought of it that way. And that suddenly he didntbtake gouging people of their rightsade as much sense as he once did.
I am surprised you could keep him from going hysterical long enough to get your point across logically .
Exactly. Good on you gitem! I've given up and don't even bother anymore.
By the way, the founders DID envision and intend for civilians to have "military weapons". The only firearms that existed WERE "military". Incidentally, did the founders restrict civilians in the 2nd amendment from owning cannons?.....
If he accepted the counterpoint, he wasn't a liberal. He's just an uninformed dumb ass that does not think freely.
Travis
What does metro sexual mean anyway?
I think I would have argued that the founding fathers certainly wanted citizens to be able to protect themselves with muskets, the modern arms of the day, and not bows and arrows. Today, the modern arm of the day is the AR15. In fact, a man with an AR15 is severly outgunned by folks with much greater power in the military; so, by constitutional standards we probably don't have access to enough firepower.
What does metro sexual mean anyway?
I think it means they're anybodies old dog that will hunt with 'em, male, female, dead, alive, plant or animal.
Gunner
Metrosexual is a neologism, derived from metropolitan and heterosexual, coined in 1994 describing a man (especially one living in an urban, post-industrial, capitalist culture) who is especially meticulous about his grooming and appearance, typically spending a significant amount of time and money on shopping as part of this. One who looks in the mirror a lot. One who is cool has all the latest tech gadgets, who say all he pc things. A real dandy.lol
Gitem 12--you sir have hit a home run!
Thanks WW, so it's a girly man.
Gunner
It was so cold here in town yesterday, that two liberal dhimmicrats were spotted with their hands in their OWN pockets.
LMAO, That sir was funny.
Thanks WW, so it's a girly man.
Gunner
Yes, Almost [bleep] but not quite there.
Excellent points, gitem. Well done.
I usually counter that "freedom of the press" must only apply to manual printing presses with hand-set type. And that "freedom of speech" must only apply to face-to-face verbal communication.
Ha! Guys these are great arguments! Nicely said! Too logical for the Liberal mindset to absorb...besides it smashes the pre-conceived notions and the pablum they have been fed.
If he accepted the counterpoint, he wasn't a liberal.
Boy, isn't that the truth.
OP good job. Instead of losing your head and insulting someone or acting like an ignorant redneck gun whacko you calmly explained the differences using facts and sound arguements and actually possibly changed a mind who may go out and even tell his ignorant voter friends.
Like Travis said I don't think this was a real liberal just an uniformed ignorant voter who only gets his news from John Stewart and occasionally CNN. I think this describes most of the "liberals" in this country. Just independant people who actually probably lean conservative but when you listen to the MSM no wonder they think Repubs are evil and guns are bad etc. That is what the news tells them.
What does metro sexual mean anyway?
.
That's a guy who hast figured out he is gay yet....while the rest of u have.
I usually counter that "freedom of the press" must only apply to manual printing presses with hand-set type. And that "freedom of speech" must only apply to face-to-face verbal communication.
And the Brown Bess musket was the M16 of its day.
Paul
Or Larry the cable guy suing Hustler mag for giving him carpel tunnel.
Gunner
You can do that?
I'm gonna be RICH!!!!
Where in the 2nd Amendment does it what type of Arms?
How do u mean 496?
Are you asking from the stance where do the libs have the right to tell us what weNEED?
Or from the stance that most certainly cannot dictate to us the types of arms we may bear?
Unbelievable
, to bad you couldn't throw a blade back at him too and give him a flying vasectomy.
Gunner
You're such a softy. How about an axe so he's decapitated? Makes for a better liberal.
How do u mean 496?
Are you asking from the stance where do the libs have the right to tell us what weNEED?
Or from the stance that most certainly cannot dictate to us the types of arms we may bear?
Both... I know Heller tells us what kind of arms. But were does it say in the 2nd Amendment? I think the Founders Fathers did see into the future.
What if in 10 years, 30 years, 50 years the weapons we have now become like the black powder weapons out dated. How will the 2nd amendment be interpreted then?
I think the founding fathers absolutely knew that technology in firearms would advance and I believe that is the express reason that they did not write musket, or rifled musket. If you look at the original militia act. It states that they shall have at the ready a suitable musket or FIRELOCK. Now I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that the reference to firelock could be inferred that were speaking of match locks or wheel locks. Could anyone provide further analysis on that?
I have often wondered about the word BEAR in that glorious phrase. Were they meaning it literally and absolutely that we were permitted to only have arms that we may bear in our hands, or were artillery pieces included?
Excellent work. 1 down, how many to go...?
Well, I don't subscribe to the "living document" philosophy. I have always believed that the constitution is written, plainly and simply and means exactly what it says. So in my opinion the firearms we may see in the future would fall under the protection of 2A.
My basis for that theory is that just as the 2A does not specifically say musket it also does not say firearm. It just says arms.
The battle cry: TO ARMS, TO ARMS. has been said for ages. Did you ever hear them say TO SWORDS? or TO PIKES?
I think the founding fathers absolutely knew that technology in firearms would advance
Of course they did. I'm sure they understood the progression from wheel lock to flint lock.
I think the founding fathers absolutely knew that technology in firearms would advance
Of course they did. I'm sure they understood the progression from wheel lock to flint lock.
as I am sure they were witness to many other technological evolutions in their days.
The obvious original intent of the Second Amendment was for the citizens to have the same arms available as the military, in order to avert potential tyranny. We have had these rights dwindle away until only the basic minimum is left. Now they want that too.
I think everyone on this forum is well aware of what the second truly is in place for. However I think wr need to.be able to articulate our argument from many angles and not just screaming the same one over and over. Brow beating hasn't gotten us anywhere.
I chose to let him try and brow beat me and gave him the opportunity to voice his stance, then realizing this guy had never had a gun or problably had never shot a gun I chose to put rights that he may fiercely value and put the 2A debate on that spin. He was able to understand it and it hit him more because he isn't a gun owner.
I think this same type of tactic should be used with the ar15 debate. We all hear "noone hunts with an ar15", well I think its damb time the NRA and every other talking head that defends the 2A start focusing on the point that thousands of people hunt with them instead Od the same tired argument that its my right.
I completely agree that the 2a isn't about hunting. But we need to fight this battle from all sides. Wr need to get the big name tv hunters who hunt with ars to start being vocal. Wr need local guys to talk to local politicians and send them pictures of us with our kids hunting with ars.
