What are the acceptable limits of the 2nd Amendment?

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Balance that budget or else.... It doesn't take a nuke to ruin us. It's pretty obvious that we've lost our ability to check and balance.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Balance that budget or else.... It doesn't take a nuke to ruin us. It's pretty obvious that we've lost our ability to check and balance.

That's always been true of any government, at any time. You were talking about nukes. Of course the thread is about something else entirely.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by ZeeWolf

Well, being the only nation on earth with such an expressed right to bare
arms the notion of a truly "free people" in not vary popular. Worth noting
the New Marxist doctrine of so called "Human Rights" is totally void of such an
expression. And yet it is sweeping the enlightened civilized world.
Our only hope, as a nation, is keeping the whites a huge majority.
And interpreting the constitution as it was originally intended by the (all white) Founding Fathers.


ZeeWolf

Our only hope is to keep a huge white majority, you can't be serious, whites have always had a huge white majority.

You're nothing but a racist pig and can go F yourself. Surprised you haven't been banned for such racist statements.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Surprised you haven't been banned for such racist statements.

I'm more surprised he bothers coming back here. It's not like he is the first one preaching such message here, but the rest have simply buggered off sooner or later.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

I'm more surprised he bothers coming back here. It's not like he is the first one preaching such message here, but the rest have simply buggered off sooner or later.

Well he needs to sell his overpriced "ready when ready" T34vT expansion somewhere.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

I'm more surprised he bothers coming back here. It's not like he is the first one preaching such message here, but the rest have simply buggered off sooner or later.

We are all humans and all have some bias towards something, but that is different than hate. When you point out all races somehow aren't equal to the "white man" that is beyond personal bias, nothing but pure hate towards people because of the way they were born. Hopefully a mod will soon help him bugger off than later. You would think a member since 2007 would have more sense than to post such crap.

"Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust."

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Downwinders?

[Neptunus Rex]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Simple clear limits.
Convicted violent criminals.
Unconvicted accused criminals awaiting trial who are judged to present a credible risk of reoffending.
Mentally unstable(including substance abusers).
Restrictions on minors.
No carrying in licensed premesis as alcohol and firearms do not mix(bar owners and staff may be exempt).
Ban on fully auto(with exceptions)
Full up to date record of guns and gun owners to impliment all firearms regulations

Also, thanks to Sen Schumer of NY and Sen Lautenberg of NJ, anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence charge is banned from owning or handling any firearm, at any time, even those convicted prior to enactment of this law.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Nuclear testing in the Pacific?

Starfish Prime?

[mapuc]

If I was the president of USA

I would say this to the American people

the 2nd Amendment say that you have the right to bear arms. It does not say which kind of weapon it must be.(from what I understand of it)

So from now and forward all weapons that have armo bigger than 6 millimeter is banned.

Guess I would be very little loved if I said that

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Nuclear testing in the Pacific?

Who did we kill there?

Starfish Prime?

Gojira.

[ETR3(SS)]

Well let me play devils advocate here. Like it was said earlier, anything the military has the people should also be able to have. So in theory if I can afford the price tag of say an F/A-18 along with the additional price tag of the ordnance, FAA approved pilots license, fuel, maintenance, etc why not? I can already own a fully automatic weapon if I can afford the weapon itself along with the fees and permits.

[Sailor Steve]

They might invoke the militia clause and insist that you show up for regular training and be prepared for a call-up. I suppose if you're the right age you could just join the Air Guard or Air Force or Navy reserve.

[August]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Well let me play devils advocate here. Like it was said earlier, anything the military has the people should also be able to have. So in theory if I can afford the price tag of say an F/A-18 along with the additional price tag of the ordnance, FAA approved pilots license, fuel, maintenance, etc why not? I can already own a fully automatic weapon if I can afford the weapon itself along with the fees and permits.

Actually you can legally have all of that including ordinance as long as it's not explosive.

The particular model of Aircraft might be difficult to obtain seeing as it's being built under contract for the government atm but an older model fighter of slightly less capability is quite legal. Kinda like so called military "style" semi-automatics.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Who did we kill there?

That is not an easy question to answer. No one, to my recollection, died due to either the nuclear blast or heat/fireball. But determining who died because of radioactive contamination is a lot harder to "prove". At various times, the courts have ruled that there were instances in which the US government was negligent in protecting human life during nuclear testing both domestically and internationally.

Here is one example

On 10 May 1984, U.S. District Court Judge Bruce S. Jenkins ruled that radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear tests in the 1950s had caused ten people to die of cancer and that the government was guilty of negligence in the way it had conducted the tests.

http://www.ctbto.org/?id=2664