Guns and Growing.

RetiredToker76

Well-Known Member
There has always been hatred in this world, and there will always be people who hate other people.

Like me. I hate everyone equally!

The movies Omega Man and I Am Legend are my utopia. Give me a half a dozen AR-15's, 100,000 rounds of .223, and some zombies to shoot and I'll be thrilled won't even need weed (although it'd be nice.)

-RT76
 

Gamberro

Well-Known Member
Second Amendment statement about it being qualified and regulated via the militia clause.

True and False ..

"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."

The second amendment clearly states that a 'well regulated Militia' is 'necessary to the security of a free State.' These are two clauses that provide the purpose of the second amendment.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

'the right of the people' is the 'protection' clause that is what the bill of rights is all about. The bill of rights does not suspend any freedoms it guarantees freedoms to the people.

Notice it's worded 'the right of the people' not 'the right of the state' or 'the right of the militia.' It's THE PEOPLE that are the subject of the sentence. There's your grammar lesson for the day.

The first major Second Amendment court case in the lat 1800's was about a man in New York who carried a concealed weapon, a blade concealed in a walking stick. The Supreme court determined that militia applied to any 'white male between the ages of 15 and 45.' Sorry this was the 1800's.... It also determined that 'arms' was to be defined as 'weapons applicable to a military purpose.'

Later in the 1960's and 1980's the National Firearms Act reversed these decisions, unconstitutionally I might add, by qualifying the second amendment as 'for sporting purposes' (Thanks NRA you rat bastards.)

This year in Heller vs. DC, it was determined that no state can determine if a person has a right to own a weapon, but soft of half assed with really dumb definitions.

So, being a constitutionalist I have to say that I want to own RPG's, Select Fire, and hell even a grenade or two. However the draconian laws that exist firmly believe that 'we the people' are not capable of responsibility.

Could that be because of the 'New Deal' inacted in the 30's that was a total affront to Darwinism? Without going into crazy detail, the New Deal basically created the United States as a welfare country. If you can't provide for yourself don't worry those who do provide for themselves will provide for you via taxes filtered to welfare.

So an irresponsible person, who can't feed their own family, is paid out of our taxes so they can live .... AND BREED more irresponsible people. That's why it's an afront to Darwinism.

Call me cold hearted, but if you chose to drop out of school, refuse to work for a living, don't have the intellectual capabilities to 'think creatively' for profit/survival, then you have no right to survive in my opinion.

The welfare state has continued to grow and grow and grow until it's utterly out of control. With FICA, SS, medicare/medicaid, and income tax I'm losing almost 30% of my paycheck. So if I made the 'median' income in the US my gross would be $40,000 a year, with a take home of roughly $28,000. The poverty level at current cost of living is at $29,000 and below. So anyone in the 'median' bracket is technically in poverty, yet they make too much to qualify for government assistance.

So those who 'can and do' are punished and taxed to provide for those who 'can't or won't.' Then the question is posed here, 'Why are there so many idiots?'

The answer is right in front of you. We argued with Darwinism and won. We have allowed, for 70 years, not only the propogation of lesser genetics but the excessive propagation of lesser genetics. The more brats you squeeze out the more welfare you get.

Then we have crys for 'Universal Healthcare' in the US so now we won't even let inferior genetics die of natural causes, now we tax payers are crying for the elongation of the inferior genetics lives which will naturally allow them to breed MORE.

All I have to say is watch the first 10 minutes of 'Idiocracy.' The rest of the show sucks, but the first 10 minutes is VERY accurate. If you do sit through the rest of it, ponder how long it will be before we're watering our weed with gatoraid. "Electrolights good because corporations tell us so, ugh!"

Dumb gun owner kills himself = darwinism at work

Smart gun owner defends his family from violent criminal = darwinism at work

Gun legislation = violent criminals knowing thier pool of prey just got much larger = anti-darwinism as they pick off those who are capable and intelligent and follow the law.

The only legislation I support is legislation that would make Darwinism law. Let the weak perish at their own incompetence.

-RT76
That started off so well, it was sad to see it devolve (no pun intended) into an explanation of antiquated social theory.


"Then we have crys for 'Universal Healthcare' in the US so now we won't even let inferior genetics die of natural causes, now we tax payers are crying for the elongation of the inferior genetics lives which will naturally allow them to breed MORE. "
Well my dad, 65 and a year spent on disability checks that weren't coming, was forced to leave the country because he couldn't replace his work insurance, what with the pre-existing condition of a failed triple-bypass heart surgery. But I guess he was just of inferior genetics, so should have been allowed to go without his medication and inevitably die. Because he's a bum. Thank you.
 

Gamberro

Well-Known Member
.....No offense, but stereotyping doesn't help anyone.

Your willing to throw large amounts of people into one group and just assume they all react the same.
It's not stereotyping to say that most people act or react a certain way. Or at least I don't think you can "stereotype" the human race as a whole, until some other intelligent race comes along to stereotype us.

I dont know where you live, but in Canada and the rest of the world the majority of people cant go out and get a firearms license. You need to have a clean record.
Most people have a clean record. Would you be comfortable with most of the people you know owning guns?

Gang members that kill people with guns are not legal firearm owners, they use stolen weapons. People who kill with knives dont always use a knife because they are crazy, maybe they just cant get a gun.
That was an example of how it takes more balls to kill with a knife than a gun. It's not a general statement, it's saying that gangsters recognize that it takes a lot more heart (or less depending on how you look at it) to kill someone with a blade.
The majority of gangsters I knew from the RDG bought their guns legally. Not to say they were licensed, but they were legally purchased. I have never known someone to use a zip gun or scratched gun.
 

Gamberro

Well-Known Member
Everyone seems to think if guns didnt exist that murder rates would drop. Its just not going to happen. There has always been hatred in this world, and there will always be people who hate other people.
So we should make it easier for them?
 

BCtrippin

Well-Known Member
RT76 you always seem to say it best. :clap:

Reverse Darwinism at its finest. And now the next global problem is going to be over population, then disease being spread by overpopulation and globalization.

As bad as it sounds sometimes, in the end, Whos gonna feed all these idiots who cant provide for themselves? If it wasnt for our governments providing constant handouts these people would have long since died off.


Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he will be able to provide for himself.


The funny thing is, if you stop giving handouts to most of these people who dont provide for themselves, they would have nothing left to do but go find a job.


:peace:
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
RT76 you always seem to say it best. :clap:

Reverse Darwinism at its finest. And now the next global problem is going to be over population, then disease being spread by overpopulation and globalization.

As bad as it sounds sometimes, in the end, Whos gonna feed all these idiots who cant provide for themselves? If it wasnt for our governments providing constant handouts these people would have long since died off.


Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he will be able to provide for himself.


The funny thing is, if you stop giving handouts to most of these people who dont provide for themselves, they would have nothing left to do but go find a job.


:peace:
Sounds like we should just nuke the poor and shoot the homeless on site :roll: Watch out!
Claymore . . .
 

Gamberro

Well-Known Member
RT76 you always seem to say it best. :clap:

Reverse Darwinism at its finest. And now the next global problem is going to be over population, then disease being spread by overpopulation and globalization.

As bad as it sounds sometimes, in the end, Whos gonna feed all these idiots who cant provide for themselves? If it wasnt for our governments providing constant handouts these people would have long since died off.


Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he will be able to provide for himself.


The funny thing is, if you stop giving handouts to most of these people who dont provide for themselves, they would have nothing left to do but go find a job.


:peace:
Overpopulation is no longer a fear. It's almost impossible.
No, stop giving handouts and the person will get hungry. Get them hungry, they'll get desperate. Get them desperate, they'll get....

a gun......
 

BCtrippin

Well-Known Member
Most people have a clean record. Would you be comfortable with most of the people you know owning guns?
If they can pass the background checks where I live and get licensed legally then Yes. I 100% support anyone who wants to go through the legal process of owning a firearm to do so.

Mind you in Canada the background checks are more than just a "clean criminal record" You have to have references, and they might even check your highschool. So its definitely not that "easy" for an unstable individual to get a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) in Canada.


:peace:
 

RetiredToker76

Well-Known Member
That started off so well, it was sad to see it devolve (no pun intended) into an explanation of antiquated social theory.

<snip>

Well my dad, 65 and a year spent on disability checks that weren't coming, was forced to leave the country because he couldn't replace his work insurance, what with the pre-existing condition of a failed triple-bypass heart surgery. But I guess he was just of inferior genetics, so should have been allowed to go without his medication and inevitably die. Because he's a bum. Thank you.
Well apparently he wasn't inferior intellectually or genetically because he used his brain to find a way to survive, leave the country, pretty creative and smart if you ask me.

There's always someone who get's upset by this diatribe. The fact is 9 times out of 10 those who are upset are upset because they or a family member lost health insurance. First of all, most the time we 'kids' pick up the slack for our parents if they are unable to get medical treatment, that's what good kids do for their folks. Second of all, many people, such as myself have been putting a 'nest egg' for just such problems later in life. If that nest egg gets eaten by sever medical expenses many times your kids can pick up the remaining tab.

Under the Clinton plan she was 'selling' during the primary I had to have a colonoscopy. It cost me $3000 and my insurance $15,000. It cost so much because I chose to go to the best. They found a polyp that would kill me in 5 years had it not been found. They used the latest technology, latest camera and latest digital imaging and removed the polyp and 400% of the surrounding tissue.

Under Clinton's plan (the Canadian plan) I would have been forced by the government to see their legislated doctor involved a wait of 6 months to 3 years to get scheduled for 1 of a few government funded colonoscopy scopes (likely made by the lowest bidder) and likely died as a result. Oh ya since I'm 32, I likely would have been denied care at all since I'm not in the 'risk group' being I have no family history of colon cancer and I'm under 50. So the government would have decided it was 'elective' anyway.

If I wanted the 'best' as I chose to get last year, then I would have to pay 100% cost on my insurance (which right now my company picks up 60%) AND pay for the 'Universal Plan' to cover everyone else. So my check would be reduced by close to $1000 a month to cover my insurance and some undetermined amount to cover everyone else except me because I'm not willing to accept 'lowest bidder' for my medical care and it saved my life.

People age, people get sick, and people die, that's a fact of life that's been going on forever. Either you find a way (as your dad did or as I did) to get the care you need or you die. Your call.

If you have ANY questions about governmental medical care take a tour of VA hospitals. I have and THEY SUCK! My dad was being treated in a VA hospital, for free since he's a Vietnam Vet, and while he was there he contracted hepatitis. He was there for post traumatic stress disorder and GOT Hep A at the VA Hospital. (Government at it's best.)

I'm sorry, buck up, pay your bills, and plan ahead. Don't leech off society so you can own a Lexus and not pay for your own parents.

Obama, at least in his campaign, got it right in forcing companies to provide medical coverage and providing incentives to insurance companies who advocate preventative care. He should also push for stronger restrictions on drugs and pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices as well as care providers and hospitals. That would increase health care for those of us who are in the upper half of the genetic / intellectual bell curve.

-RT76
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
If they can pass the background checks where I live and get licensed legally then Yes. I 100% support anyone who wants to go through the legal process of owning a firearm to do so.

Mind you in Canada the background checks are more than just a "clean criminal record" You have to have references, and they might even check your highschool. So its definitely not that "easy" for an unstable individual to get a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) in Canada.


:peace:
Here and america all I have to do if fill out a form wait ten minutes and show them the money. Canadian politics will never be totally conservative like it gets here in the US. Can we ship our evangelist's up there to 'save' you?
 
Top