Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree27Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 10th, 2017, 12:58 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
avlis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Matosinhos Portugal
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
I'm cool with that....But how do you stop selling illegal weapons....They are illegal already??....

.fact not opinion....When you make weapons illegal....only the government and bad guys will have the weapons.....not good...
_________________--


friend I'm against, who has illegal weapons.
Your weapon is cool.
for example thugs assaulted his house they stole his weapon that is legal, because his weapon in the hands of the bad guys, happens to be illegal weapon.
I speak correctly.
avlis is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 01:42 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,704
[QUOTE=avlis;1102769]...........................

amigo Twisted Sister

What I write in Portuguese, I do the translation in google to English, but I know that the translation has some errors, so many times I send in two languages English Portuguese for you to translate better than my google
and thank you for your understanding of my writing wrong with English
I ask you please, if you misunderstand some phrase, tell me to translate better or send photos to say what I mean for example Portuguese words do not exist in English see here in these two Portuguese words

portuguese word » Anjo English » Angel

portuguese word » Anjinho English » Angel wrong translation but has to do with angel in the Portuguese language there are many words like that in the Portuguese language that can not do well the Portuguese and English translation.




o que eu escrevo em português,eu faço a tradução em google para inglês,mas sei que a tradução tem alguns erros,por isso muitas das vezes eu mando em duas linguas inglês português for you to translate better than my google
e agradeço a vossa compreensão sobre a minha escrita errada com o inglês
e eu peço por favor,se entender mal alguma frase,me digam para eu traduzir melhor ou mandar fotos a dizer o que eu quero dizer.
por exemplo palavras portuguêsas não existe em inglês veja aqui nestas duas palavras portuguêsas

.............

casa das flores English flower house

house » casa = flower » flores

..................

Florida city - cidade da Flórida » correct

Florida city -cidade da Florida wrong

letter o must have a seat to be Flória

without seat we read in the letter we read Flurida

examples Portuguese country names with accents in vowels


America - wrong = América correct in portuguêse

Canada - wrong = Canadá correct

Mexico - wrong = México correct

Malasia - wrog = Malásia correct

Argelia - wrong = Argélia correct

etc.etc.

but we understand what's wrong only missing is the seats in the vowels, we have serious and treble seats.

Yes friend you can read Portuguese with your pronunciation or sotáque is normal

if you read the normal word I understand it, if I read the normal word you understand me, only the pronunciation is different, because the English language has many Latin words if you say banana I understand it if I read the word banana you understand me etc. etc.

in portuguese
se voçê ler a palavra normal eu o entendo,se eu ler a palavra normal voçê me entende,só a pronuncia é diferente,porque a lingua inglesa tem muitas palavras latinas se voce dizer banana eu o entendo se eu ler a palavra banana voçê me entende etc. etc.

more difficult to speak Portuguese and write Portuguese understand Portuguese is easier.The Portuguese language has a problem, it's very treacherous.

in portuguese

mais difícil de falar português e escrever português entender o português é mais fácil a lingua portuguêsa tem um problema,é muito traiçoeira[/QUOTE

Oui, mon amie but I don't have the luxury of computer generated language translation. I wish I could put accents and tildes but my PC can't do that. In any event direct translation almost never gives the true meaning.

edit: It was my job to read Japanese machine manuals that was directly translated into English and that was more than quite a task. When a Japanese machine starts it makes a cricket chirping sound. I asked the Japanese in charge, what does that mean? Machine is Happy was his reply.

Last edited by Twisted Sister; October 10th, 2017 at 01:57 AM.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 07:29 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
@ Avlis.........What you do in Portugal is fine with me....Knock your socks off..... But, in my country, I understand why there is a 2nd amendment to our Constitution....It is simply none of your business to be questioning what is a right in my country... I do not need permission, or have to explain my right to "keep and bear arms"... that is also in use by our military
"I do not need permission, or have to explain my right to keep and bear arms...that i also in use by our military."

So, you agree with the argument that the citizen has a right to be armed in the same manner as the typical U.S. infantryman, excluding crew served weapons?
Hollywood is online now  
Old October 10th, 2017, 09:13 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
"I do not need permission, or have to explain my right to keep and bear arms...that i also in use by our military."

So, you agree with the argument that the citizen has a right to be armed in the same manner as the typical U.S. infantryman, excluding crew served weapons?
As I read the 2nd Amendment...parity with the military... Yes...

Remember the times it was written in...The British had "Brown Bess"...a 75 caliber smooth bore that was effective to maybe 250 yards ...We were using the Kentucky long rifles a 40 caliber weapon effective to 600 yards... These were the ultimate military weapons of their day....

Nobody complained then that that Long Rifle was only meant as a military weapon...
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 10:40 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
As I read the 2nd Amendment...parity with the military... Yes...

Remember the times it was written in...The British had "Brown Bess"...a 75 caliber smooth bore that was effective to maybe 250 yards ...We were using the Kentucky long rifles a 40 caliber weapon effective to 600 yards... These were the ultimate military weapons of their day....

Nobody complained then that that Long Rifle was only meant as a military weapon...
That was not the question I asked, now was it?
Are you trying to say that ONLY firearms were considered to be "arms?" Or that we should ONLY have parity with the late 18th century infantryman and NOT the infantryman of our day?

No, the Brown Bess was no where close to being accurate at 250 yards. As you yourself point out it was a SMOOTH BORE musket and did NOT have a rifled barrel. Now, the Baker rifle introduced to the British Army in 1801 did have a rifled barrel and was accurate at that range, but NOT the smooth bore Brown Bess.
And the Kentucky rifle was merely a local copy of the Pennsylvania rifle.

Last edited by Hollywood; October 10th, 2017 at 10:41 AM. Reason: typo
Hollywood is online now  
Old October 10th, 2017, 10:55 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
That was not the question I asked, now was it?
Are you trying to say that ONLY firearms were considered to be "arms?" Or that we should ONLY have parity with the late 18th century infantryman and NOT the infantryman of our day?
I answered you....The framers used arms and weapons interchangeably.. It's hard to tell if they meant ALL weapons or only fire arms...However the intent was understood....That the PEOPLE should be able to deter a rogue central government....That would mean that there would have to be parity in the weapons..Civilian to military....

The Civil War upset that whole notion....As weapons became more complex, it was not likely that civilians could have access to all types....and the State's rights argument sort of got trashed.....

As for now, the complexity of weapons and mutual concurrence has limited the term "to bear arms"....to mean "firearms".....So what I am saying is that the modern interpretation means that civilian fire arms should be similar to military firearms......see US v Miller
Thanks from Sabcat
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 11:02 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
I answered you....The framers used arms and weapons interchangeably.. It's hard to tell if they meant ALL weapons or only fire arms...However the intent was understood....That the PEOPLE should be able to deter a rogue central government....That would mean that there would have to be parity in the weapons..Civilian to military....

The Civil War upset that whole notion....As weapons became more complex, it was not likely that civilians could have access to all types....and the State's rights argument sort of got trashed.....

As for now, the complexity of weapons and mutual concurrence has limited the term "to bear arms"....to mean "firearms".....So what I am saying is that the modern interpretation means that civilian fire arms should be similar to military firearms......see US v Miller
So. you ARE saying that "arms" means ONLY firearms.
Yes or no.

Please note I have consistently EXCLUDED crew served weapons from the argument.
Hollywood is online now  
Old October 10th, 2017, 11:23 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
So. you ARE saying that "arms" means ONLY firearms.
Yes or no.

Please note I have consistently EXCLUDED crew served weapons from the argument.
I fucking know that!!! Already!!....Sheeesh!! You can be one royal pain in the ass.... According to today's legal interpretation YES!! "firearms" means weapons that can be held in ones arms and fire a small projectile....They do not mean crew served weapons or weapons that fire a large projectile like an M-79...

Now when the framers framed the Constitution....what crew served weapons were they aware of???.....other than a 6 lb canon.....which is a little murky if they intended to include artillery as "ARMS"
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 10th, 2017, 11:29 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
I fucking know that!!! Already!!....Sheeesh!! You can be one royal pain in the ass.... According to today's legal interpretation YES!! "firearms" means weapons that can be held in ones arms and fire a small projectile....They do not mean crew served weapons or weapons that fire a large projectile like an M-79...

Now when the framers framed the Constitution....what crew served weapons were they aware of???.....other than a 6 lb canon.....which is a little murky if they intended to include artillery as "ARMS"

Oh, so your argument is based on current/modern legal decisions and not your interpretation of the Constitution.

No, "arms" was considered to be weapons that could be carried by the individual infantryman.
Hollywood is online now  
Old October 10th, 2017, 11:33 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Oh, so your argument is based on current/modern legal decisions and not your interpretation of the Constitution.

No, "arms" was considered to be weapons that could be carried by the individual infantryman.
When??? 1787??....You are sure of that??
Jimgorn is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
america, states, stop, united, weapons



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Say evil of europe and united states america avlis World History 0 August 28th, 2017 12:18 PM
United States of America Kipper Americas 3 December 6th, 2016 10:52 AM
George Bush and the United States of America coke Americas 11 November 18th, 2015 07:10 PM
FACT SHEET: Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States The White House The White House 0 June 19th, 2013 06:30 AM
Joint Statement of the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Fed The White House The White House 0 June 17th, 2013 11:50 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.