why that was nice

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

We didn't have a white house in 1776.
We didn't even have a president in 1776.

I'm aware of such facts and used a convenient date to make a point; if you truly couldn't see that, perhaps you should drop out of the conversation and leave it for the grown ups

Nice attempt to duck the substance in the post, but it's a cheap maneuver easily seen through.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

When there is a question about the meaning of such Constitutional terms, the most sensible and honest way to resolve it is to look at the way that the terms have been used in the Constitutional tradition. For example: does Congress have the power of subpoena? The Constitution doesn't say so. But the colonial legislatures, the state legislatures, and Congress itself from the very beginning all exercised that power. It is reasonable to assume that it is implicit in the Constitution.

“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

This regulation, written when Madison and Jefferson were still alive, makes it clear that the right to bear arms was a right possessed by individuals, and that it is active for self-defense as well as for service in a militia. Kentucky has a similar provision from 1799:

That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Seems quite clear to me.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defence of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question

I want chemical weapons and should be able to buy them at 711.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

I'm aware of such facts and used a convenient date to make a point; if you truly couldn't see that, perhaps you should drop out of the conversation and leave it for the grown ups
Nice attempt to duck the substance in the post, but it's a cheap maneuver easily seen through.

you make fun of people for not critically analyzing every word of the constitution, yet you don't even use accurate dates? You even made numerous typos. I would expect someone like yourself would at least put the right date down

I'm not dodging the subject.

A cannonball would not destroy the white house. A fire would burn it down, maybe, but it would be rebuilt in the same place in no time.

A nuclear weapon, after the fallout, would destroy it, and keep it destroyed. That is why you can't get them.

And, if you think that we should be able to get them, because a 200+ year old document says we can have the right "to bear arms" then you are a fool. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

and btw, the first fire extinguisher was patented in 1729.

On February 10, 1863, the fire extinguisher was patented by Alanson Crane.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

On February 10, 1863, the fire extinguisher was patented by Alanson Crane.

The first automatic fire extinguisher of which there is any record was patented in England in 1723 by Ambrose Godfrey.

If you want me to post the websites i got it from, i would be glad to.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The fire extinguisher that is so commonplace in modern homes was not invented until 1905. In 1863, Alanson Crane of Fortress Monroe, Va., invented and patented a liquid-filled glass "grenade" that could be hurled at the base of a fire in hopes of extinguishing the conflagration.

"Hope" is the operative word here because it would have to be a minor fire indeed for one of these grenades to have much effect.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

you make fun of people for not critically analyzing every word of the constitution, yet you don't even use accurate dates? You even made numerous typos. I would expect someone like yourself would at least put the right date down
I'm not dodging the subject.

A cannonball would not destroy the white house. A fire would burn it down, maybe, but it would be rebuilt in the same place in no time.

A nuclear weapon, after the fallout, would destroy it, and keep it destroyed. That is why you can't get them.

And, if you think that we should be able to get them, because a 200+ year old document says we can have the right "to bear arms" then you are a fool. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate.

Considering i was having several real time, and one way, conversations at the same time, one should expect grammatical errors to be made. Using a easily recognized date, instead of wasting time googling dates, seemed like an acceptable alternative.

I'm sorry i have set such high standards in the past, yet failed to live up to them tonight.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

However, he also invented a fire extinguisher. It worked by suffocating the fire and therefore putting it out, an idea credited to a Zachary Greyl. A miniature wooden barrel was filled with fire-extinguishing material. Then gunpowder was inserted in a pewter sphere at the centre of the centre of the barrel, and fitted with a fuse, pipe and guides to the top. When the fuse was fired, the explosion forced the fire upwards. It was first tested on Hampstead Heath in 1723. A report about a spate of fires in London in 1727 said:

"I hear that the famous machines or Fire Watches, invented by Mr Godfrey the great Chymist.displayed their wonderful effects, and prevented the progress of that furious element [the fire]."

http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/informationresources/museum/exhibitions/themotherofinvention/godf.html

The first automatic fire extinguisher of which there is any record was patented in England in 1723 by Ambrose Godfrey, a celebrated chemist. It consisted of a cask of fire-extinguishing liquid containing a pewter chamber of gunpowder. This was connected with a system of fuses which were ignited, exploding the gunpowder and scattering the solution. This device was probably used to a limited extent, as Bradley's Weekly Messenger for November 7, 1729, refers to its efficiency in stopping a fire in London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher

not to mention the fact that the white house is not a "modern home".

I'll condede that a fire in the early 1800's would bring the white house down, but again, if you read my earlier post it would be rebuilt.

Not to mention the president and other vital members to our government would have almost been surely evacuated.

But yet again, you cannot evacuate someone when a nuclear bomb is detonated right outside. Which is, yet again, why ordinary people should not be allowed to have them.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Oh but since you want to point out insignificant errors, the White House was burned down by the British.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

I'll condede that a fire in the early 1800's would bring the white house down, but again, if you read my earlier post it would be rebuilt.

Oh but since you want to point out insignificant errors, the White House was burned down by the British.

i'll quote myself for this one.

 

[AllStar1500bd 5,000+ posts]

Faulkton has a bigger political ePenis than most others on here //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

But yet again, you cannot evacuate someone when a nuclear bomb is detonated right outside. Which is, yet again, why ordinary people should not be allowed to have them.

Well if you think we should go changing the constitution, i guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Nonetheless, today it still agrees with me.

Also, I'm sure those fire extinguishers were terribly effective. loL. Extinguish fires with gunpowder. I'm surprised we dont still use them today.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

I'm sure those fire extinguishers were terribly effective. loL. Extinguish fires with gunpowder. I'm surprised we dont still use them today.

you don't know much about fire science do you. Not to mention that the gunpowder had already exploded, which caused the fire to spray up, which separated it from it's source, which caused it to go out. Without anything for it to burn, it can't continue. It lost all it's fuel.

I'm not saying it was terribly effective, I'm just saying they had one. We are talking in the early 1700's here.

Come on.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

i'll quote myself for this one.

You kept using it as a hypothetical, conceding it could happen, when in reality it didhappen.

I figured since you wanted to point out my "mistake" (obviously made to quickly prove a point), i would point out your obvious error made several times without even the realization.