Maybe I'm blind to politics...but what the fuck, people LIKE the 2nd amendment?

[Ganhyun]

If we allow guns now, what about LASER GUNS in the future?  Criminals will be unstoppable!

psh, why look that far ahead? Besides, by then either:
1.) We (the human race) will be extinct.
2.) We'll have Halo style or better shields for protection
3.) We'll all be mental computer ninja and war will be something that happens in cyberspace.

[duckman2000]

We should also regulate free speech cause thats pretty dangerous also.

You must certainly should

[Crushed]

We should also regulate free speech cause thats pretty dangerous also.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can't blow holes in a person's head or torso.

[The Fake Shemp]

FoC wants the right to bear firearms that shoot nukes!

[FlameOfCallandor]

We should also regulate free speech cause thats pretty dangerous also.

You must certainly should

Agreed, people should not be allowed to speak freely! What kind of barbaric society is this anyway.

[Van Cruncheon]

the right to own guns and gun control are two totally different things.  of course not everyone should be able to own one and of course we have some tightening up we can do, but i really don't see why a responsible citizen should not be able to own a fuck nine millimeter or .22 rifle or fucking .45.  eat me.  i love my guns.

this.

[siamesedreamer]

That's right. If anyone can think of any justified reason as to why any civilian should be allowed to possess automatic firearms, please enlighten me.

Its more efficient when I go fishing.

[Phoenix Dark]

good point mupepe

i say we start a petition to get MAF on Hardball, with him behind a curtain on the computer, typing his answers in response to Chris Matthews

[FlameOfCallandor]

We should also regulate free speech cause thats pretty dangerous also.

The first amendment doesn't mention "well regulated"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please point out where it says that only people who are part of a well regulate militia should be allowed to own guns.

[FlameOfCallandor]

You didnt answer my question.

[FlameOfCallandor]

That doesn't make any sense. It clearly says that a militia is a necessity of a free state and because of that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Nowhere does it say that only those in the militia should be allowed to own guns.

[Mandark]

If you want to understand American resistance to gun control, this pretty much sums it up.



Also please notice how quickly conservatarians defenestrate their beloved federalism when it conflicts with another value that they deem higher priority (ie all of them).

[AdmiralViscen]

MAF, Mupepe, Prole, win

[FlameOfCallandor]

It states that the miltia is neccesary, but it only becomes protected when linked to the second clause, which then means the "well regulated" adjective becomes linked as well.  Ignoring the secondary clause means the militia is only spoken of as neccesary, but not neccessarily protected.

No it doesn't.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why am I even debating this with you. The supreme court just ruled in favor of the second amendment. Hippie liberal fegs am cry. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

Supreme Court > Genghis Cohen

[Van Cruncheon]

It states that the miltia is neccesary, but it only becomes protected when linked to the second clause, which then means the "well regulated" adjective becomes linked as well.  Ignoring the secondary clause means the militia is only spoken of as neccesary, but not neccessarily protected.

No it doesn't.

PROOF

[Mandark]

Cars kill more people in the US than guns probably, lets all stop driving around.

I assume MAF is mocking bad pro-gun arguments with this.

[FlameOfCallandor]

PROOF

I'm not sure why you think anyone should take you seriously when people who try and debate you seriously are called "hippie liberal fegs."

That was my exit from the debate since I don't debate people who can't read. Sorry bro, perhaps when you graduate from high school we can talk about grown up things.

[Mandark]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html

[APF]

I think the simplest interpretation is: in order to have a functional militia--and because at the time such was deemed necessary for national security purposes--the government must respect the right of citizens to carry guns.

[TakingBackSunday]

Right.  But that was more than 200 years ago.  When do we need a militia anymore?

[huckleberry]

Right.  But that was more than 200 years ago.  When do we need a militia anymore?

When the Constitution was being written the Founding Fathers didn't envision America with a standing Army....


...I would have to think that the paranoia with which the 2nd amendment was written the FF would have been even more approving of an amendment to protect the right to own firearms.

[TakingBackSunday]

Brandnew: A militia at the time it was written and what we currently think of a militia are two wholly separate things, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Well, I think that's sort of my point.  That clause of the amendment doesn't hold water.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Right.  But that was more than 200 years ago.  When do we need a militia anymore?

I dont see why people bring up this argument. It's rather silly considering there is a built in method if you want to change he constitution.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Thats exactly what I said. 

[TakingBackSunday]

Right.  But that was more than 200 years ago.  When do we need a militia anymore?

I dont see why people bring up this argument. It's rather silly considering there is a built in method if you want to change he constitution.

Oh fuck I HATE this excuse.  You think a little shit like me can stand to campaign for an unpopular amendment and get 2/3 of my state to agree?

[Mandark]

"I don't know why someone would talk about their libertarian principles.  There's a built in method to change government policies."

[Mupepe]

Right.  But that was more than 200 years ago.  When do we need a militia anymore?

I dont see why people bring up this argument. It's rather silly considering there is a built in method if you want to change he constitution.

Oh fuck I HATE this excuse.  You think a little shit like me can stand to campaign for an unpopular amendment and get 2/3 of my state to agree?

Uh, that means the system works.  Sorry you're in the minority, but everything is working the way it should then.  If it's unpopular it means it's not what most of the people want.  For the people, by the people and all that.  

[TakingBackSunday]

Right.  But that was more than 200 years ago.  When do we need a militia anymore?

I dont see why people bring up this argument. It's rather silly considering there is a built in method if you want to change he constitution.

Oh fuck I HATE this excuse.  You think a little shit like me can stand to campaign for an unpopular amendment and get 2/3 of my state to agree?

Uh, that means the system works.  Sorry you're in the minority, but everything is working the way it should then.  If it's unpopular it means it's not what most of the people want.  For the people, by the people and all that.  

I know, I agree with you.  This is just my opinion and all...*shrugs*

[Mupepe]

we should go out for a beer and discuss it like gents.  Maybe fire off a few rounds from my .38?

[FlameOfCallandor]

BrandNew's opinion

[ShogunOfFear]

+1 for the US
FUCK YEAH!   

[FlameOfCallandor]

"I don't know why someone would talk about their libertarian principles.  There's a built in method to change government policies."

this doesnt make any sense.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I was arguing fora  strict interpretation of the constitution, not a loose one. Instead of reinterpreting the constitution change it the legal way via legislation.

Did any of you chumps read animal farm? The pigs kept reinterpreting the constitution to benefit themselves.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 33

Thomas Jefferson

[FlameOfCallandor]

He's saying "stop talking, just use the electoral system to get your libertarian principles enforced," just like you told BrandNew.

Reading isn't a libertarian principle.

[FlameOfCallandor]

  That came out wrong. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

Legislation usually begins at a purely conceptual level, which means arguments and debates.

Right, was BrandNew arguing to make legislation? Is sounded more like he was complaining that the supreme court reads a document 200 years old.  

[APF]

It's a bad comparison.

[huckleberry]

The 2nd amendment wouldn't even be an issue if so many douchebags wouldn't go around shooting people.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Guys the constitution is like 100 years old or some shit. I mean we live in the time of internets and Xbox who needs smelly old documents. I mean, come on.

[GilloD]

Shooting guns is SUPER FUN. CRYSIS AM CRY.

But really- Who does striking down legal gun ownershuip hurt? Bad people will get their hands on guns, legal or not

[AdmiralViscen]

Reading isn't a libertarian principle.





This thread has gone off the deep end

[Mandark]

But really- Who does striking down legal gun ownershuip hurt? Bad people will get their hands on guns, legal or not

That's true as long as there are a ton of guns already in circulation and sizeable gun industry making more.  It's an uphill struggle for DC so long as people can just buy in Virginia.

But guns are difficult to come by in countries where they never proliferated and the restrictions are broad and yes, it does result in less gun violence.

I'm fine with liberal politicians putting gun control on the backburner on the federal level since it would be politically impossible to legislate something like a European/Japanese policy and enforce it effectively.  But if state or municipal governments want to crack down, I think they should be able to.

[APF]

Just creates more shankin's and there's no right to bear knives so watch out steak lovers.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Obama's reaction: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right."

Is this not contradictory?

[AdmiralViscen]

Reporter: [inaudible] electing you, they would have someone who not only knows the constitution but has taught it. What are your thoughts about the 2nd amendment?

BO: I believe the 2nd amendment means something. I do think that it speaks to an individual right. There’s been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms but it’s subject to common sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common sense regulation. So I think there is a lot of room before you start bumping up against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common sense gun laws that I just spoke about.


fire crowded theatre etc

[FlameOfCallandor]

So its ok for the constitution to say "the right shall not be infringed" and then for DC to infringe that right?

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Banning guns is unrealistic.

There are so many hot weapons that it would be impossible to try to get them all.  Chances are that the weapons are not going to land in the hands of conscientious citizens but with people who caused the guns to be banned in the first place.  Besides, it would take a massive and expensive effort to try to get rid of them all and even then, it wouldn't happen.

Gun bans work better in European and Japanese country because they were enforced shortly after World War II.  There was greater benefit to taking away weapons in those countries because it was best not to arm Soviet funded operations.  Let us not forget The Troubles in Northern Ireland, which caused thousands of deaths in such a small area.  So even gun bans then have proven to be rather ineffective.

At the same time, the 2nd amendment is outdated.  A militia would get mowed down in minutes.  The US government is so far ahead of disorganized shack losers in Montana that if none of them could probably get a shot off without having 50 bullets in them a split second before they pull their trigger.

[AdmiralViscen]

afaik Obama is in favor of the SC ruling

[FlameOfCallandor]

At the same time, the 2nd amendment is outdated.  A militia would get mowed down in minutes.  The US government is so far ahead of disorganized shack losers in Montana that if none of them could probably get a shot off without having 50 bullets in them a split second before they pull their trigger.

I disagree. I would like to see someone like a foreign country or even god forbid a renege president impose his will on a whole group of people who are armed with nothing but rifles and side arms. Yes they would kill lots of american citizens but when a group wants to impose their will on someone they cant just kill them all. See vietnam.


 It's not weather they would get mowed down or not its what it represents. Gun banning is the hallmark of a statist society, like Nazi germany or the USSR. Our government is saying "We trust you with this freedom."

[FlameOfCallandor]

afaik Obama is in favor of the SC ruling

Yeah he is saying. "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right."

Which contradicting. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean that a local government can infringe on your constitutional right. That's why we have a constitution.

[FlameOfCallandor]

So its ok for the constitution to say "the right shall not be infringed" and then for DC to infringe that right?

Reasonable regulation has always been argued for.  Not that I'm saying DC's regulations were reasonable, because I don't think thay are, but reasonable regulation has a tradition.

"whether"

What's reasonable?

[AdmiralViscen]

Go yell FIRE in a crowded theater, this is 10th grade material

[APF]

Yeah, I don't see how people can look at current events and say a poorly-armed militia is powerless against the US military.

[siamesedreamer]

afaik Obama is in favor of the SC ruling

In a major flop...

[FlameOfCallandor]

Go yell FIRE in a crowded theater, this is 10th grade material

Lying about something like that is complexity different then being able to won something responsibly.

[AdmiralViscen]

I don't really want to get into this, but FoC do you believe that convicted felons should be able to legally own guns?


edit: SD, PROOF?

[FlameOfCallandor]

I don't really want to get into this, but FoC do you believe that convicted felons should be able to legally own guns?

I'm mixed. On one hand I think convicted felons that serve their time shouldn't be discriminated against. But on the other hand I know why its a bad idea.

But this is very different from an ordinary citizen being able to own something.