...nope............................my personal gun runner... :lipsrsealed: :sneaky:
GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
...nope............................my personal gun runner... :lipsrsealed: :sneaky:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
If your position is "the Founding Fathers believed anyone -- felons, mentally ill, toddlers -- can have any weapon -- tanks, bazookas, machine guns -- at any time for any reason" you are (a) off your rocker and (b) factually incorrect.
Let's start with an easy question -- what restrictions/limitations on gun ownership were in place in 1787 and survived the adoption of the Constitution?
Let's start with an easy question -- what restrictions/limitations on gun ownership were in place in 1787 and survived the adoption of the Constitution?
'Mentioned before I have no intention of wandering back into 'the swamp' with you 'debate-wise', Jeff. Whenever I've done that in the past, I've spent at least 1/2 my time correcting the 'spin' you've put on whatever I said...not to mention having to put up with the insults and name-calling you always threw in for good measure (witness the "off your rocker" comment above, for instance). 'Just a huuuge, never ending waste of time all the way around IMHO.
So, thanks but no thanks. I'm going to 'pass'. :vanish:
So, thanks but no thanks. I'm going to 'pass'. :vanish:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Start with page 502 for a lengthy description of the gun regulations in place in 1780s and onward. Meaning, the Founders clearly did not believe in an unlimited, absolute right to own guns.
I was using the collective "you" above Larry, not you specifically. But I will say your posting above that the Founders had to have believed in an unlimited, absolute right to own a gun is factually incorrect. As the article below illustrates, there were numerous gun regulations in place both before and after the enactment of the Constitution.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was therefore clearly not to eliminate all regulation.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/056e/84b88e86420a66d58e9e4bd79c810d9ef88f.pdf
I was using the collective "you" above Larry, not you specifically. But I will say your posting above that the Founders had to have believed in an unlimited, absolute right to own a gun is factually incorrect. As the article below illustrates, there were numerous gun regulations in place both before and after the enactment of the Constitution.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was therefore clearly not to eliminate all regulation.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/056e/84b88e86420a66d58e9e4bd79c810d9ef88f.pdf
WOW, Jeff...that is a GREAT read!
Of course...I wouldn't expect Larry to read it if it didn't coincide with his opinions, which seem to be based on a rather rigid belief that the actions of the Founding Fathers should be applied to the unfathomable changes that have occurred in our country since the FF's were active (alive??).
We are all entitled to our beliefs, though...thanks in no small part to the founding fathers!
I, for one, believe in the advances made through the changes we have enjoyed in the 200+ years since the FF's were active. Progress...plain and simple...renders older solutions ineffective in some circumstances and I definitely believe in progress!
Cheers!
Doug
Of course...I wouldn't expect Larry to read it if it didn't coincide with his opinions, which seem to be based on a rather rigid belief that the actions of the Founding Fathers should be applied to the unfathomable changes that have occurred in our country since the FF's were active (alive??).
We are all entitled to our beliefs, though...thanks in no small part to the founding fathers!
I, for one, believe in the advances made through the changes we have enjoyed in the 200+ years since the FF's were active. Progress...plain and simple...renders older solutions ineffective in some circumstances and I definitely believe in progress!
Cheers!
Doug
Nope. You're spinning again. You quite clearly stated:
"You" and "your" refer to a specific individual...me in this case.
A "collective" statement might have looked something like: 'Generally speaking (IOW, not necessarily ALL), those who hold the view that...are off their rocker.'
For reasons previously stated, I'm not interested in debating the above either, counselor. :shifty:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
No. Just NO. What is this, alternative grammar stuff? lol
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
pronoun, possessive your or yours, objective you, plural you.
1.
the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case:
You are the highest bidder. It is you who are to blame. We can't help you. This package came for you. Did she give you the book?
2.
one; anyone; people in general:
a tiny animal you can't even see.
The latter is what I meant. I wrote it, I get to choose what it means. I meant the collective you.
Good grief.
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
pronoun, possessive your or yours, objective you, plural you.
1.
the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case:
You are the highest bidder. It is you who are to blame. We can't help you. This package came for you. Did she give you the book?
2.
one; anyone; people in general:
a tiny animal you can't even see.
The latter is what I meant. I wrote it, I get to choose what it means. I meant the collective you.
Good grief.
For Christ's sake you two just quit it already..In this context of course I am using 'Christ' as a pejorative, not necessarily meaning to imply that I would like you both to cease and desist in His Name and For His Sake, but used collectively, it means 'for all our sakes' if you apply the strict interpretation of basic Christian values...
Or..
Get a room.
Or..
Get a room.
Not that there's anything wrong with Christian values, of course, we just wouldn't want to offend any of you pagans or non-Christians. And of course by "you" I'm using it in the plural and not pointing towards anyone specifically, ....I wouldn't want to single out or offend a Druid or Atheist.
If they do get a room, I'm in charge of taking bets. To begin, I'll bet a huge sum Jeff doesn't show up to the room.....I'm still waiting for him to show up to Murderapolis.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Still waiting on my first class ticket my friend!
Eggshells Steve, it's like walking on fricken' eggshells!
Larry's gone "strangely quiet" because he said he wasn't going to debate whether or not Jeff was using the "collective". 'Meant what I said and 'stand by my conviction that he in fact was not (numerous similar uncomplimentary declaratives expressed in many of his previous posts bear witness to/confirm the accuracy of my stance on the matter).
But, as to your implied question regarding whether or not I'd even be interested in getting together with Mr. Young anywhere at any time for any reason...the answer is a very predictable 'no'...as I'm sure HIS would be as well. :smartass:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
No HoJos left in the US, but I'd meet Larry anytime for a beer to give him a lesson basic grammar....lol.
Jammin dude, I fly first class due to many, many, many air miles. First class me to Minneapolis and up I come. But remember! There is are only two possible answers -- don't flip out -- to the question of why black incomes/net worth/graduation rates/etc. lag behind whites. Either (a) something inherent to black folks or (b) external forces.
If you ask me, it ain't (a). You?
Jammin dude, I fly first class due to many, many, many air miles. First class me to Minneapolis and up I come. But remember! There is are only two possible answers -- don't flip out -- to the question of why black incomes/net worth/graduation rates/etc. lag behind whites. Either (a) something inherent to black folks or (b) external forces.
If you ask me, it ain't (a). You?
Glad your special enough that you will only fly first. I wouldn't pay for that and, as stated, that wasn't the deal. Certainly changing the deal is a nice way to get off the hook, because there's no way I'm paying $1500+ to fly you anywhere.
Limiting your answers to your a) and b) is short sighted and overly simplistic. Option a) is obviously racist. Option b) is lazy and potentially self-righteous. It is a great way to bait people and try to paint them in a negative light, however, which is likely your goal.
Minnesota has some of the highest taxes in the entire country. One of only a handful of states that even taxes retirement benefits / social security. It's also known to have the richest pool of welfare money and has become home to many people who could work but choose not to since economically it just makes better sense (to them) to forgo education and specialized job training and just live on the dole...
I worked for Minnesota DHS (Dept of Human Services) many years ago as an IT specialist. Seeing the dollars that flowed out was enlightening to say the least. Each child that a woman had would net her more than $500 a month (this was 20+ years ago) for food stamps alone. I am fairly certain that dollar figure has grown at least two fold since then.
Children that are raised in households that are subsidized or just flat out given to them are exposed from birth to a system which seems to legitimize that lifestyle. They are encouraged to take the easy road and perpetuate this and the cycle starts over yet again.
So my question would be - how do you break the cycle?
Add to all of this the influx of refugees to Minneapolis and Saint Paul that seems to just make this process all that much more of a burden on the taxpayers.. I think the numbers show Minneapolis to have the highest concentration of Somali and Ethiopean refugees - many of which have no plans of becoming citizens unless forced to..
I worked for Minnesota DHS (Dept of Human Services) many years ago as an IT specialist. Seeing the dollars that flowed out was enlightening to say the least. Each child that a woman had would net her more than $500 a month (this was 20+ years ago) for food stamps alone. I am fairly certain that dollar figure has grown at least two fold since then.
Children that are raised in households that are subsidized or just flat out given to them are exposed from birth to a system which seems to legitimize that lifestyle. They are encouraged to take the easy road and perpetuate this and the cycle starts over yet again.
So my question would be - how do you break the cycle?
Add to all of this the influx of refugees to Minneapolis and Saint Paul that seems to just make this process all that much more of a burden on the taxpayers.. I think the numbers show Minneapolis to have the highest concentration of Somali and Ethiopean refugees - many of which have no plans of becoming citizens unless forced to..
- Status
