Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ztPFXwX4c GG ~ Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Polite, firm, kept trying to get the panty wetting schill to clearly answer one question rather than go haring off onto another. Didn't let him twist words and meanings. Called him on the "well what about nuclear weapons" and "why a grenade launcher" hysterics. A thing of beauty. Link to comment
Clemsum Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 The NRA needs to hire this guy as their spokesman. He did better than anyone I have seen them put forward recently. Link to comment
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 The NRA needs to hire this guy as their spokesman. He did better than anyone I have seen them put forward recently. +1. A good debater. Link to comment
Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 He couldn't seem to get the news guy to give him a straight answer, could he? Present 'em with facts, they answer with emotion. "You're armed. That's scary to me." I read a psychological treatise recently about projection, and that's exactly what the news guy in this case, who obviously thinks an AK47 is some sort of grenade launcher, is doing. "I don't want the guy down the street to have an AK47 because he'll go nuts and kill people with it." Guns are hallucinogenic? Who knew? PS I posted that one on Facebook. Link to comment
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance." Link to comment
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 One of the best I have seen in a longe time. At least the host didn't yell and scream like that IDIOT Piers Morgan does, when he is beat'n back. Facts are stubborn things that 'libs' will never understand....... LG Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance." But if you look at the powers of Congress, one of them is to issue letters of marque and reprisal. That power supposes private ownership of cannon since the Navy doesn't need letters of marque. Link to comment
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 But if you look at the powers of Congress, one of them is to issue letters of marque and reprisal. That power supposes private ownership of cannon since the Navy doesn't need letters of marque. Good point. Link to comment
Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance." I like that! Can I quote you elsewhere? Link to comment
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I like that! Can I quote you elsewhere? If you don't mind coming out on my limb...sure, quote it. Link to comment
Rye Miles #13621 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I'm going out on a limb here on archaic terminology used by our founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there were two basic types of military weapons; those were "arms" and "ordnance." Arms were weapons carried by the individual soldier. Ordnance were weapons generally served by a crew; such as artillery. The founding fathers didn't have an amendment "to keep and bear ordnance." There is a phony argument used by the news person in the video about nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are clearly "ordnance" not "arms." An AR-15 is an "arm." whereas, a tank, a M2 machine gun, a mortar, a nuclear bomb would be defined by the founding fathers as "ordnance." Great explanation Birdgun, maybe you outta go on TV!! Rye Link to comment
Calamity Kris Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Yes, you are correct. The commentator was clearly owned. Unfortunately, there will be no rational discussion until the hysteria ends. Link to comment
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted February 26, 2013 Author Share Posted February 26, 2013 Yes, you are correct. The commentator was clearly owned. Unfortunately, there will be no rational discussion until the hysteria ends. And the hysteria is perpetual with the left-ee-leanie wennies. GG Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 And the hysteria is perpetual with the left-ee-leanie wennies. GG Yep. Every time they claim they want a "rational discussion" they end up trotting out the "nuclear weapons" trope (meme?). Or the claim that the pro-civil rights side dreams of having a 5 year old toting a Пистолет-пулемёт Шпагина and festooned with drum magazines. Link to comment
Ranger Sgt. Jake McCandless #3368 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Sometimes the Truth Hurts,that would be this case. Adios Sgt. Jake Link to comment
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 BQ for President! SDJ for Secretary of State!! Wait... That's not political, is it....? Link to comment
High Sierra Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 The NRA needs to hire this guy as their spokesman. He did better than anyone I have seen them put forward recently. +1 Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 BQ for President! SDJ for Secretary of State!! Wait... That's not political, is it....? Hey! Then I could have foreign affairs! um... was that my outside keyboard I used? Link to comment
Utah Bob #35998 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Hey! Then I could have foreign affairs! um... was that my outside keyboard I used? And after you leave you could get $200,000.00 per speaking engagement.Too bad you can't get that Senator's pension too. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.