Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I like this...

Good one!

I want a bazooka. Thomas Jefferson told me I could have one.

kalm wrote:I want a bazooka. Thomas Jefferson told me I could have one.

kalm wrote:I want a bazooka. Thomas Jefferson told me I could have one.

You know... Mr. High Plains Drifter
If you are nice I'll tell you the next time I'm in Spokane

kalm wrote:I want a bazooka. Thomas Jefferson told me I could have one.

That's right, he did. Or do you think he meant the people should fight bazookas with single shot muzzleloaders?

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:I want a bazooka. Thomas Jefferson told me I could have one.

You know... Mr. High Plains Drifter
If you are nice I'll tell you the next time I'm in Spokane

You're my favorite smug prick!

And High Plains Drifter"?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:I want a bazooka. Thomas Jefferson told me I could have one.

That's right, he did. Or do you think he meant the people should fight bazookas with single shot muzzleloaders?

Serious question: If they had to re-write today, do you think it would be exactly the same?

Technology is technology......our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever the government has to retain our liberty.

It's so easy even Cleets got dis.....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Technology is technology......our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever the government has to retain our liberty.

It's so easy even Cleets got dis.....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I admit that's a good argument.

So it would be written exactly the same?

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: That's right, he did. Or do you think he meant the people should fight bazookas with single shot muzzleloaders?

Serious question: If they had to re-write today, do you think it would be exactly the same?

I don't think anything written 200+ years ago would be written exactly the same today. But that's a non-starter.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Technology is technology......our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever the government has to retain our liberty.

+1

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
Serious question: If they had to re-write today, do you think it would be exactly the same?

I don't think anything written 200+ years ago would be written exactly the same today. But that's a non-starter.

Do you think the founders didn't believe the world would change?

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: I don't think anything written 200+ years ago would be written exactly the same today. But that's a non-starter.

Do you think the founders didn't believe the world would change?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. I would say they did as "Arms" to me leaves it open ended to mean whatever is the weapon of the day.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: I don't think anything written 200+ years ago would be written exactly the same today. But that's a non-starter.

Do you think the founders didn't believe the world would change?

Yes, I'm sure 89 thinks the founders thought the world would never change and be exactly like what it was in 1787.

89Hen wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Technology is technology......our founding fathers wanted us to have whatever the government has to retain our liberty.

+1

You're always calling me radical... but, even the most conservative judges believe the Second Amendment is limited - that weapons that are "most useful in military service" may be banned (Scalia in Heller).

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: +1

You're always calling me radical... but, even the most conservative judges believe the Second Amendment is limited - that weapons that are "most useful in military service" may be banned (Scalia in Heller).

Is that so novel? I mean, the 1st Amendment isn't unlimited (Schenk).

No. It's not novel at all. That's my point.

89 thinks that citizens should be able to have "whatever the government has." That's a pretty radical position for someone that thinks he's just a bit right of center.

Skjellyfetti wrote:No. It's not novel at all. That's my point.

89 thinks that citizens should be able to have "whatever the government has." That's a pretty radical position for someone that thinks he's just a bit right of center.

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: That's right, he did. Or do you think he meant the people should fight bazookas with single shot muzzleloaders?

Serious question: If they had to re-write today, do you think it would be exactly the same?

I don't think the leaders of today could come together enough to write anything like the original?

There had to be give and take, and a will to thrive as a country.

A need for a limited central government, with many rights and protections for the citizens.

Lots of luck with our "evolved" thoughts of today.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:No. It's not novel at all. That's my point.

89 thinks that citizens should be able to have "whatever the government has." That's a pretty radical position for someone that thinks he's just a bit right of center.

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

I have a mancrush today.

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:No. It's not novel at all. That's my point.

89 thinks that citizens should be able to have "whatever the government has." That's a pretty radical position for someone that thinks he's just a bit right of center.

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

So ricin and mustard gas should be legal?

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

So ricin and mustard gas should be legal?

So in hyperbole, we should all have muskets?

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:No. It's not novel at all. That's my point.

89 thinks that citizens should be able to have "whatever the government has." That's a pretty radical position for someone that thinks he's just a bit right of center.

I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

Agreed. But FYI, the state isn't armed with bazookas. Hasn't been since early Nam..Carry on..

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: I think everyone has positions that are further left or right than they are. I voted for gay marriage in my state, does that mean I'm actually left of center?

I don't own guns, never have, probably never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone shouldn't. There is no point to the 2nd Amendment if you are only allowed to be armed with a pea shooter while the state is armed with bazookas.

So ricin and mustard gas should be legal?

Pretty sure our military doesn't have/use that, so yeah.