Is the 2nd Amendment just for muskets?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Yes, let's have a gunfight at BPS. I'm too old and broke down for fistfights. How old are you, incidentally?
Seems like you are fishing for lots of info from me. I will be glad to post my picture if you want to meet me. Or there are a few on here that know me so you wont have to worry about me sending a proxy. I just love chickenshits who think they can say what ever they want hiding behind a keyboard. I would rather have my ass beat by you then let that slide.. although that would never happen.
Why dont you just apologize to everyone you have called names here and we can let this go. You just might even get one from me.
Might want to be a long gun with a bad ass scope or he will be in trouble. Maybe he should embrace the 2A so that he can get something besides a powder gun to protect himself. I imagine he might change his thoughts once a real threat faces him. Cant hide behind liberal thoughts forever. #Pancake #Face
Boy I've done it now, haven't I? I'm either gonna get shot or beat up when I go to the game. It's like I'm in the 5th grade again and there's a pissed off 7th grader waiting for me after school.
So who are you? If you're going to pulverize me you should at least tell me who you are.
Please tell me you won't be there. If I'm getting shot I should at least have a paramedic that's on my side.
Jesus. Are you sure about all this? Yes, please post a picture.
You are the one that started taking all the shit. Want to back it up or apologize? I will post a pic if you promise to meet me, I have no problem with that. I dont know CowboyJD but you went over the line with him and he might be the only person that I might want to talk out of a fight. You are a pussy. Say you are sorry, if you are man enough.
And quit using Jesus in vain, but you wont do that because you dont believe in God.
@syskatine let me buy you a hot dog at a game. What do you think? You are a Poke and I love you for that. You dont try to hurt me and I wont hurt you. I do want you to say you are sorry for all of the things you said to people here though.
@syskatine
We're good.
I don't feel the need to resort to fisticuffs.
I too am old and brittle...as my ruptured plantaris tendon will testify
I am still scared of you, but you do dress kind of funny on game day.
I don't discriminate when it comes to work. Besides, letting you die would ruin future fun.
All is well, JD. The good news is it's not your achilles.
At this point I can't even play basketball without hurting myself, wth am I gonna do in a fist fight?
I didn't even know what in the hell a plantaris tendon was.
I've since learned it's the appendix of the leg. No actual function. Just there to cause trouble for old guys. Doc said snapping it is often called "the disease of the aging athlete". Looking on the bright side....at least that means I'm an athlete. Haha.
OUCH. My 12 year old had surgery on her posterior tibialis tendon in December. She's finally getting back up to speed in the gym. Foot injuries take forever to heal.
Uh, as a non-medical type, I'd suggest you think about: injury-retired former athlete. Methinks, it might get some mileage.
Third post in i was called out as lazy and lying - go look at it. Why do you say that?
So after calling people a pussy and trying to meet up for fistfights you want to make sure nobody says something bad about Jesus? I love you too, but I'm not in love with you. I'm not sure we have a lot in common.
That would probably be the smartest decision. Something tells me I'm going to keep raging against the dying of the light. Heh.
Soccer is boring. And designed to injure old people. It's just like ballroom dancing. Except there is a ball everyone is trying to kick.
@syskatine
People were smart back in the day. Cesare Beccaria's irrelevant historical musings are still true today.
"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."
People were smart back in the day. Cesare Beccaria's irrelevant historical musings are still true today.
"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."
Interesting thread I read the whole thing.
Basically, to have a well regulated militia, ensuring a free state, the state needs to provide the citizenry with arms. These arms would obviously have to be equivalent to any arms an invading army would have at that point in time.
Basically, to have a well regulated militia, ensuring a free state, the state needs to provide the citizenry with arms. These arms would obviously have to be equivalent to any arms an invading army would have at that point in time.
Similar threads
