Illinois Matmen Forums Illinois Matmen Forums

Go Back   Illinois Matmen Forums > Non-Wrestling > Non-Wrestling Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 1 Week Ago
Blonjuan44's Avatar
Blonjuan44 Blonjuan44 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
An NRA member would likely be the one that would save your life, not take it.
No facts again. Statistically you or somebody in your family are more likely to kill themselves than stop someone who is doing something worth being shot. And I am not against guns, I am against bad information. Un-related - it is a bad idea to tell people if you have guns or not, that is nobody business. Ironically, people will rob you for your guns. This non-sense about mental illness being the main issue. I guess gun owners going to pay a tax to eradicate all mental illness - which is impossible. Just do what has been proven to work in other countries that still allow hunting and guns. The weirdo president really don't care about guns, he will sign whatever. I liked how when asked if he knew who sharpied the map (actually illegal what he did) and he said he didn't know. And then his staff said it was him. That is about as blatantly lying as it gets - over dumb stuff. He must really lie when it over his more il-legal stuff.

https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/
__________________
There are two guys in that zebra costume! Very funny...
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 1 Week Ago
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
Do these guns that you speak of need assistance from humans, or do they kill on their own?

What do you think we should do with the person that killed you after we take his guns?
Brother MAL, nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, even firecrackers don't blow themselves up, and yet reasonable people understand that they must be well-regulated.

The person who killed me is, himself, dead. Other alleged murderers should receive a fair trial and imprisonment. If truly murderers, they deserve to die, but that shouldn't be for us to decide.

GO WITHOUT GUNS, MY FRIENDS
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 1 Week Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blonjuan44 View Post
No facts again. Statistically you or somebody in your family are more likely to kill themselves than stop someone who is doing something worth being shot. And I am not against guns, I am against bad information. Un-related - it is a bad idea to tell people if you have guns or not, that is nobody business. Ironically, people will rob you for your guns. This non-sense about mental illness being the main issue. I guess gun owners going to pay a tax to eradicate all mental illness - which is impossible. Just do what has been proven to work in other countries that still allow hunting and guns. The weirdo president really don't care about guns, he will sign whatever. I liked how when asked if he knew who sharpied the map (actually illegal what he did) and he said he didn't know. And then his staff said it was him. That is about as blatantly lying as it gets - over dumb stuff. He must really lie when it over his more il-legal stuff.

https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/
Now you are just being silly. I don't think anybody thinks NRA members are committing any significant crime at all...these are the people that believe in law and order, and are willing to donate their own money to the cause of protecting their legal rights.http://extranosalley.com/how-many-gu...y-nra-members/

https://www.quora.com/Has-any-member...ry-disciplined

Suicide is not caused by guns. About half of all suicides are not committed with guns. Logic would dictate that most failed suicide attempts are also not attempted with guns...but that is irrelevant anyway. Logic also dictates a significant number of suicides by gun would have occurred with out access to a gun. It may possibly be true that limited access to guns could possibly save some lives, you are completely ignoring the elephant in the room...Why are they committing suicide in the first place?
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/stat.../suicide.shtml

I am not sure what your point is with mental illness is, but anybody that intentionally takes a life is mentally ill. If they can be stopped, fear is just about the only way...fear of humiliation...fear of punishment...fear of death...fear of going to hell...you name the fear, but they must be afraid to kill or they will kill if they are over the edge.

I don't feel like looking up the sharpie and the map, post a link so I know what you are talking about, but I doubt that I will really care even if he did break laws. After watching what the FBI did in an attempted coup, because they didn't like the results of an election, I am willing to give Trump a pass for just about anything.

Last edited by MAL; 1 Week Ago at 09:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 1 Week Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
Brother MAL, nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, even firecrackers don't blow themselves up, and yet reasonable people understand that they must be well-regulated.

The person who killed me is, himself, dead. Other alleged murderers should receive a fair trial and imprisonment. If truly murderers, they deserve to die, but that shouldn't be for us to decide.

GO WITHOUT GUNS, MY FRIENDS
Your miss using the term "well-regulated"

"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"

Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.

Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia…" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keep…arms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.

The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key.

With this preliminary understanding, let’s examine how the Amendment came into being and was then ratified into the U.S. Congress.

The First Continental Congress, which convened at Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, was the first major political gathering of the American Colonies. This Congress was to become the de facto revolutionary government that directed the war for independence.

The principal outcome of this first meeting was the issuance of a petition called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, an appeal to King George III to restore harmony between Britain and the Colonies. At that time, there was considerable discord between them, chiefly because of the passage by the British Parliament in March 1774 of the so-called Intolerable Acts, a series of punitive measures directed against the Colony of Massachusetts for its rebellious conduct, which had been recently evidenced by the Boston Tea Party. Before adjourning, the First Continental Congress also arranged for a second Congress to take place in Philadelphia if the king failed to respond favorably to their petition.

As it turned out, not only did George III fail to respond favorably, he began preparations for war. In August 1775 he issued a proclamation "for suppressing rebellion and sedition" in the Colonies and hired 20,000 Hessian mercenaries, who were soon sent to America.

The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775. Delegates to this meeting ― including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson ― began to organize the colonies for war. George Washington was commissioned to organize a continental army, and the Congress formulated regulations for foreign trade, issued paper money, and sent emissaries abroad to negotiate with foreign powers for financial, diplomatic, and military assistance. Jefferson, aided especially by John Adams, drafted and Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776; and on November 15, 1777, Congress drafted and adopted the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified by the thirteen colonies in 1781.

During much of this period, armed combat had been taking place between the colonists and the British army and its mercenaries. The conflict ended with the surrender of the British forces at Yorktown on October 19, 1781.

Subsequently, the states recognized that the Articles of Confederation were flawed, impractical, and urgently in need of amendment, Therefore, the States sent delegates to a convention that convened at the State House in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787.

The Convention was attended by 55 delegates from twelve states, all prominent political figures of the time, including such luminaries as James Madison, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. (John Jay and Thomas Jefferson did not attend, as they were on diplomatic missions abroad; nor did Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams, both of whom opposed the formation of a strong central government for the new nation.) The delegates soon realized that merely amending the Articles of Confederation would not solve the problems facing the States and that a new governing document was required.

After four months of debate, the Constitution was drafted, signed, and then sent to the individual states for ratification, as required by its Article VII. This Article provided that the Constitution could become effective only after ratification by at least two-thirds of the states.

In the months before and after the Constitutional Convention, including the ratification period that lasted until June 21, 1788 (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, fulfilling the two-thirds majority ratification requirement), numerous constitutional debates took place in all the states, accompanied by a steady stream of commentary in the popular press about the issues being debated.

It came as no surprise that with all these politicians at work, literally thousands of pages of debate proceedings, records, and suggested amendments were produced.

Reading their words, one tries to imagine what it would be like to be in their company and share in what they must have been feeling. Surely they must have been proud of their stunning victory over the British and full of optimism for their future as free people in a free country. But at the same time, they must have felt humbled, uncertain, and fearful of the momentous task that lay before them. One also begins to realize that even though only fourteen years had gone by, for these most determined men it was likely that the smell of gunpowder from Lexington and Concord was still in their noses.

THE FEAR OF STANDING ARMIES

Of all the powerful memories and emotions the Founding Fathers brought to the constitutional debates, apparently none was stronger than their fear of standing armies. As David Young has observed: "The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period."

Yet, in the absence of a standing army, how was the nation to defend itself from external or internal aggression? The Founding Fathers understood this would be accomplished by a militia. But what kind of militia?

Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):

"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."

Regarding the freedom to keep and bear arms, of particular concern to the Anti-federalists was that a central government would, over time, convert and model from the corpus of the general militia (traditionally meaning all able-bodied men between the ages of roughly 16 and 60) a "select" militia (men typically between the ages of 18 and 21, say, who would receive more training and be better equipped than the rest of the people).

As far as the Anti-federalists were concerned, such a skilled and select militia would, for all practical purposes, be the same as the standing army that they so feared and detested. They were aware that in 1783 George Washington, and a year later Baron Von Steuben (the Prussian expatriate who had served as Washington's inspector general), had proposed a "peace establishment," which at that time would have been the equivalent of a select militia; and that Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, had advocated a select militia in The Federalist Papers, No. 29. (It is interesting to note, however, that Hamilton's proposal assumed that the general population would be armed.)

But if the people were not to maintain a standing army, whence would come their defense against armed aggression? It would come, the Anti-federalists understood, through the existence in each state of a general militia, in which every able-bodied man aged 16 to 60, keeping his own arms and ammunition and trained (e.g., well regulated or disciplined) in their use, could answer the call to muster in defense of life and property.

Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:

"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

Last edited by MAL; 1 Week Ago at 10:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 1 Week Ago
Blonjuan44's Avatar
Blonjuan44 Blonjuan44 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
I am not sure what your point is with mental illness is, but anybody that intentionally takes a life is mentally ill.

I don't feel like looking up the sharpie and the map, post a link so I know what you are talking about, but I doubt that I will really care even if he did break laws.
No Facts. Only 4% of shootings are shootings are associated with mental illness alone according to Trump's very own United States National Institute of Health. Like Trump, things that you think must be right you state as fact.

"anybody that intentionally takes a life is mentally ill." - so if you are buying a gun for "protection" is that in preparation to become mentally ill. According to what you stated all the police officers and soldiers in war are mentally ill.

https://slpecho.com/opinion/2018/03/...health-stigma/

"sharpie and the map, post a link so I know what you are talking about" - I thought you were joking about being in the Uni-bomber's shack but it looks like it is true. More importantly do you sub-let?
__________________
There are two guys in that zebra costume! Very funny...
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 1 Week Ago
oldpioneer oldpioneer is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,968
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...210125751.html
__________________
Always support your local wrestling tournament concession stands!!!
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 1 Week Ago
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,452
Dear BROTHER MAL, I have created a graphic representation of my comment and your response below:

Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 1 Week Ago
oldpioneer oldpioneer is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,968
������. I will say this, if he is using the same typewriter As the Unabomber those fingers are busy!
__________________
Always support your local wrestling tournament concession stands!!!
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 1 Week Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
Dear BROTHER MAL, I have created a graphic representation of my comment and your response below:
According to the original intent of the Constitution, your sentence means that every man between 16 and 60 must own "nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles,and even firecrackers" and be trained in their proper use...so I don't understand how it is a "non sequitur".

Last edited by MAL; 1 Week Ago at 11:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 1 Week Ago
oldpioneer oldpioneer is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,968
I can’t speak for the Almighty chief. But I think what he saying is resumes and letters of recommendations are always kept a one page for a reason. There could be more, but after looking at just tons and tons of copy and paste thing. I give anyone credit for reading through it. True story, someone asked Abraham Lincoln what he thought about someone’s 800 page book. He responded that anyone that needs 800 pages To convey their thoughts doesn’t Know what they are talking about.
__________________
Always support your local wrestling tournament concession stands!!!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
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 -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.