Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #591  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:36 PM
Jibartik Jibartik is offline
Planar Protector

Jibartik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 16,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Maybe more security at schools sure..even though the cop at my high school was useless and so were the cops at Uvalde.. and..Vegas..

But that still isn’t enough imo. There needs to be something done to gun legislation even if it’s light or harsh..can anyone who argues “everything but” at least agree that we as a nation need to look at regulation?
Nothing will ever be enough, that's the point.

So you dont start with the unconstitutional solution, that also won't be enough.
__________________
🏰🛡️🧙🏼Classic UI Quest🧝🏼🔮🗡️
🐾🦄 Classic Mob Safari 🐗🐾
📖🧛🍾The Wisest Necro🦇🧟💀
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:36 PM
Skarne Skarne is offline
Fire Giant

Skarne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Paul Allen’s apartment
Posts: 783
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Its so easy once you figure this out.

Because out of all the other solutions only one is unconstitutional: gun regulation.
No I disagree…the constitution says nothing about regulation…it’s the right to bear arms..

Taking away guns completely is off the table. Regulating weapons is.
__________________
“The fundamental question is, will I be as effective as a boss like my dad was? And I will be, even more so. But until I am, it's going to be hard to verify that I think I'll be more effective.“- Little Carmine
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:38 PM
Jibartik Jibartik is offline
Planar Protector

Jibartik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 16,129
Default

Shall not be infringed.

It's called punctuation. The left thinks that the constitution doesnt have it.

But it does!

It says a well regulated militia is the meat and potatoes of a free nation, and the right to bear arms will not be infringed because bears are bad ass.
__________________
🏰🛡️🧙🏼Classic UI Quest🧝🏼🔮🗡️
🐾🦄 Classic Mob Safari 🐗🐾
📖🧛🍾The Wisest Necro🦇🧟💀
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:38 PM
Mblake1981 Mblake1981 is offline
Planar Protector

Mblake1981's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Taking away guns completely is off the table. Regulating weapons is.
..in your mind.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:40 PM
Jibartik Jibartik is offline
Planar Protector

Jibartik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 16,129
Default

The constitution says I can have a tank if I want but they didnt know that we'd have such a wide array of military equipment.

But the point of the 2nd amendment was specifically that the citizens be able to match the military power of the nation.

It was not added for personal protection, or hunting, it was added specifically to protect the freedom of the state from a overpowered government.

If we want to regulate our military to match what we regulate our citizens then OK not unconstitutional.
__________________
🏰🛡️🧙🏼Classic UI Quest🧝🏼🔮🗡️
🐾🦄 Classic Mob Safari 🐗🐾
📖🧛🍾The Wisest Necro🦇🧟💀
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:40 PM
Skarne Skarne is offline
Fire Giant

Skarne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Paul Allen’s apartment
Posts: 783
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Shall not be infringed.

It's called punctuation. The left thinks that the constitution doesnt have it.

But it does!

It says a well regulated militia is the meat and potatoes of a free nation, and the right to bear arms will not be infringed because bears are bad ass.
But based on that logic it would be constitutional for anyone to own a gun despite the current regs..it’s just not realistic there’s a reason SCOTUS has ruled on this several times.
__________________
“The fundamental question is, will I be as effective as a boss like my dad was? And I will be, even more so. But until I am, it's going to be hard to verify that I think I'll be more effective.“- Little Carmine
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:42 PM
Mblake1981 Mblake1981 is offline
Planar Protector

Mblake1981's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
But the point of the 2nd amendment was specifically that the citizens be able to match the military power of the nation.
the point of the 2nd was specifically that the Gov can't take away your ability to match (or exceed) the military power of the nation.. but that was before savvy commies with nothing to do with their lives other than grind their rotten STD-infected crotches on it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:42 PM
Horza Horza is offline
Planar Protector

Horza's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No I disagree…the constitution says nothing about regulation…it’s the right to bear arms..

Taking away guns completely is off the table. Regulating weapons is.
Sorry bud, hundreds of children are going to continue to be sacrificed every year because paste eaters like Jib say that they'll try to overthrow the government again if we attempt to do anything about it.
Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:43 PM
unsunghero unsunghero is offline
Planar Protector

unsunghero's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The constitution says I can have a tank if I want but they didnt know that we'd have such a wide array of military equipment.

But the point of the 2nd amendment was specifically that the citizens be able to match the military power of the nation.

If we want to regulate our military to match what we regulate our citizens then OK not unconstitutional.
Citizens are probably pretty fucked if the US military was ever turned on them

We’d have to bank on the fact that the military, being composed of humans who have families, wouldn’t want to genocide people and defect (with their tech ideally)

Being aware the Nuremberg Defense is an immoral thing makes it easier to fight against now
__________________
Life is like a grindstone. It can polish you, or it can pulverize you, depending on how you position yourself
Reply With Quote
  #600  
Old 05-27-2022, 08:44 PM
Jibartik Jibartik is offline
Planar Protector

Jibartik's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 16,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
But based on that logic it would be constitutional for anyone to own a gun despite the current regs..it’s just not realistic there’s a reason SCOTUS has ruled on this several times.
Well yeah, im not going to argue that all the gun laws today are not unconstitutional, because they are.

But I agree we need some, dont get mad at me for just saying it like it is. With a purely constitutional SC we should be able to get rid of them all.

If you want me to say it like it "should be" then we should have a new america forged from the ashes of the old.
__________________
🏰🛡️🧙🏼Classic UI Quest🧝🏼🔮🗡️
🐾🦄 Classic Mob Safari 🐗🐾
📖🧛🍾The Wisest Necro🦇🧟💀
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.