Cousins shot

And the Second Amendment, written in a time when we were fearful of a monarchy and king's rule over the lands, pertains to the ability of each state to maintain a militia that may be armed...

Assuming that is the reason (rather than one of the reasons), is it no longer valid? Would it be acceptable to have a monarchy today? What if the monarch was Bush? What if it was Obama? I don't want either of them or anyone else as my king. Assuming you are correct, doesn't it follow that it means the people should be armed so they could carry out their right and duty (as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence) to over throw a government that is behaving badly.


With respect to your claim that the phrase "right of the people" is really a reference to the states, do you believe that in the context of the First Amendment right of the people to assemble? Does that mean the states may assemble people but people may not do it on their own? What about the "right of the people" to be secure in their possessions contained in the fourth Amendment. Is that a reference to the states? Isn't it more logical to conclude the right of the people vests an individual right?

Finally the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment are both contained in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth references rights of the people, while the Tenth specifically addresses States. If the right of the people meant the state, it is difficult for me to understand why both Amendments are necessary.
 
As a sportsman and lifelong gun owner with a license to carry a weapon legally, I have a strong opinion about the second amendment. However, this is not a forum to discuss gun rights, so please do not turn this thread into a discussion that will not accomplish a thing except get people on both sides of the issue riled up.

I didn't see this request before I posted that prior statement. I will not comment further.
 
Ada, you don't believe that "didn't see this request" stuff do you? He is testing you. Show him the ban hammer. ;)
 
Ada, you don't believe that "didn't see this request" stuff do you? He is testing you. Show him the ban hammer. ;)

do-it.png
 
Ada, I have always wanted to be banned from something. When I read this thread I am reminded of some deep thoughts.

Sometimes when I reflect on all the beer I drink, I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn't drink this beer, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. I think, 'It is better to drink this beer and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver.'--Babe Ruth

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.--H. L. Mencken

Meaningful? Maybe not. But, there it is.
 
This thread got way off track in a bad way. Thanks to Traveler it is getting way off track in a good way. :D
 
Ada, I have always wanted to be banned from something. When I read this thread I am reminded of some deep thoughts.



Meaningful? Maybe not. But, there it is.

Definitely meaningful, Traveler! I haven't seen you in sometime. Maybe we can meet somewhere and drink a cool one before a game this fall?
 
Definitely meaningful, Traveler! I haven't seen you in sometime. Maybe we can meet somewhere and drink a cool one before a game this fall?

That, good sir, sounds like a plan. I have been led to believe that the Library Bar & Grill (607 W Boyd) is not a bad option for such endeavors. Also, before a basketball game I have been known to stop by BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse on I-35 in Norman.
 
Last edited:
That, good sir, sounds like a plan. I have been led to believe that the Library Bar & Grill (607 W Boyd) is not a bad option for such endeavors. Also, before a basketball game I have been known to stop by BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse on I-35 in Norman.

B.J.'s it will be. That's one of our favorite places to go when we're in Norman.
 
The evidence shows 100 million or so people legally and responsibly use firearms for a variety of reasons in the USA. The evidence also shows that when regulations like background checks, waiting periods and prohibition of certain military style weapons that have no purpose in civilian life are rolled back homicides increase.

Just remember it could be your loved one next. Cousins is very lucky.

Here's a level headed article on the issue. link
 
The evidence shows 100 million or so people legally and responsibly use firearms for a variety of reasons in the USA. The evidence also shows that when regulations like background checks, waiting periods and prohibition of certain military style weapons that have no purpose in civilian life are rolled back homicides increase.

Just remember it could be your loved one next. Cousins is very lucky.

Here's a level headed article on the issue. link

Wll I would say it it not for you to decide if it has purpose in my life. I live out in the boonies and there could certainly be a use for it. Look at some of the self defense stories coming out of various places. The woman who ran off three home invaders in Detroit I believe comes to mind. She was outnumber by larger stronger people. A long gun with more than just a five round mag (most "hunting" rifles) was her equalizer. Ask her if it has no place.
 
Wll I would say it it not for you to decide if it has purpose in my life. I live out in the boonies and there could certainly be a use for it. Look at some of the self defense stories coming out of various places. The woman who ran off three home invaders in Detroit I believe comes to mind. She was outnumber by larger stronger people. A long gun with more than just a five round mag (most "hunting" rifles) was her equalizer. Ask her if it has no place.

Of course it's not for me to decide. Society has to decide where the line should be drawn. But there has to be a line.
 
Of course it's not for me to decide. Society has to decide where the line should be drawn. But there has to be a line.

It's also not you to decide if this thread is to continue on the same path that got it sidetracked a couple of pages back. I made that decision by asking everyone to get back on topic, a request you either missed or decided to ignore. My guess is it's the latter. You seem to delight in pushing the envelope as far as you can.

For the record, I don't disagree with some of the points you made. This is just not the place for a discussion on gun laws and the numerous variables that make up both sides of the argument. Why? For one, this is a basketball board. But mainly because we both know where it will lead.

I asked nicely the first time. Now, I'm asking again. There won't be a third.
 
Ada for future reference you can safely assume I don't read any post in a thread other than the initial topic and the posts directly before and after mine. 95% of what's posted is babbling nonsense similar to the comments sections of media websites.
 
Ada for future reference you can safely assume I don't read any post in a thread other than the initial topic and the posts directly before and after mine. 95% of what's posted is babbling nonsense similar to the comments sections of media websites.

I believe it's Ada's job to decide what constitutes "babbling nonsense," which is apparently the reason he warned you about ignoring his previous warning.
 
Back
Top