Thanks for correction and the additional information, guys.
So you don’t care about right or wrong, just whether it is constitutional. Why don’t you just go join the Westboro Baptist Church? They are well within their constitutional rights too. DO you need to be a dick? Do YOU need to be a dick. Do you NEED to be a dick. I’ll leave it up to you.
You gun nuts have already established the the relative destructive power of a weapon is immaterial. My right to have sarin gas is absolute.
If I think the Constitution is at present mostly right, and support it compared to the alternatives I’ve seen presented, then the debate, for me, isn’t about morals anymore, but about Rights, with which I generally agree in principle. That I think the Constitution is a moral document is a given, or should be.
Can you tell me what Constitutional protections have to do with the Baptist church to which you refer (beyond the fact that the !st Amendment protects religious freedom)?
Also, by what measure do you contrive to insult to me? That you perceive me to be largely in favor of the Bill of Rights in it’s entirety, or that I disagree with you that people ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their loved ones, along with the Country itself, in the manner protected under the 2nd Amendment ?
The Constitution is a marvelous piece of work, and we can be justly proud of it. It is a bold experiment, a revolutionary advance in human governance. But it is not Holy Writ, the hands that wrote it were not divine, it was not carved in stone with lightning. It does not create our rights, it is simply our first stumbling effort to codify them.
When it was written an armed citizenry made perfect sense in large portions of our baby country. But the Iroquois, the Huron and the Creek are no longer a threat, and the Redcoats are most definitely not coming, by land, sea, or internet.
We have an army. We no longer need a militia, regulated, constipated, or whatever.
You’re right, so let’s start whittling away at those rights it doesn’t create. There are plenty of soldiers out there that you can take in, why don’t we start there? What, you don’t like it? Shut up, you have no freedom of speech. Still talking? I guess you won’t mind if we take a look around your place then. Not that you can stop us, because that’s gone, too.
That’s good to know. Too bad the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to the militia in any way. The “militia argument” is dead. Resurrecting it for rhetorical purposes does not make it less so.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, it’s time for me to get to my base for my monthly “militia” duty. You know, the kind we don’t need anymore.
Being so severed, it would also follow that the right to bear arms has absolutely no connection to the security of a free state. Which makes me a bit curious why the FF would lump all that stuff together, but also thrilled that I’ll never have to hear another gun collector boast that he’s preventing tyranny.
See the slight modification there? If that word weren’t so liberally used in conversations like these, I really think there would be more progress made. Talk about the rights; don’t interject yourself or your beliefs or your interpretations. The rights are there for everyone, not just you, and when you have a conversation with people who throw “MY” in front of things which are generally understood to be everyone’s, well neck hairs get bristled and hollering starts.
Then amend the Constitution. It’s been done twenty-seven times.
But you can’t simply declare that an amendment you don’t like is erased. That’s not how our other bold experiment works.
Didn’t say any such thing, and pretty sure you know that. I have plenty of words available in my mouth, your offer to insert some extra is unneeded. With all due gratitude, I decline your offer to speak on my behalf.
Oh, so those words about a well regulated militia, they just fell onto the page by accident? Droll irony, perhaps, from the age before smilies? But its “dead”, you say? Well, that certainly settles that! An “abridged” too far, is it?
And unless the meaning of “airman” has changed since the days I was a brat on a SAC base, you are not a member of a “militia”, outside of a very forgiving definition of the word.
And, Counselor? Did they have to amend the Constitution to make it illegal to yell “Theater!” in a crowded fire? If free speech can be regulated without such amendment, why then is it necessary to amend the Constitution to regulate firearms? Is “free speech” just an ordinary sort of right, whereas the possession of weapons is an extra special one?
You has no idea that was Iron Balls Turnip.
Maybe get rid of the leather mask.
Here’s what’s worrying me right at this moment. I still adhere firmly to my stance with the Just Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much to You Caucus. The “gun grabbing” extremists offer an impossibility, it can’t happen, there are simply too many of the goddam things. For me, that mostly, almost entirely, means handguns, which I despise as icons and fetishes of fear and violence. The only road I see worthy of serious merit is the long, slow slog to a less violent society.
But the public is alarmed, and fearful. This is always a bad thing, just by itself. Fear destroys reason. But if this movement to “reasonable” regulation is stymied, neutralized, rendered moot, as the NRA would have it be, its only going to get worse. Barring some miracle, whereby these ghastly things stop happening.
Which means stupid things will happen. Stupid laws, unenforceable regulations. Arguably, those are worse than no regulation whatever.
Now, if you are deeply committed to the least possible restrictions on firearm ownership, you have to make a choice. Either try to bottle up that pressure and hope it doesn’t blow up in your face, or accept some change.
I’ve made my choice, you make yours.
You seriously haven’t heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? Maybe its time to stop reading gun porn and look at the news. You know what the news is, right? It’s what describes massacres in public places by people with guns and is suspiciously absent of zombie hoards being fended off by farmers with armories full of AR15s.
Actually I think it’s you who is stopping my right to defend myself and my family by making it easier for people who want to harm me to have guns.
Tell that to the **Airmen **of the world who pretend that half of it doesn’t mean anything!
And who, by the way, serve in a force whose existence the Constitution does not authorize.
Actually it is the courts including the highest one who determined what it means. But as stated, get 2/3s to agree with you and you can change or get rid of it.
Bad ConLaw argument, “time, place, and manner” and obscenity are the better examples.
CMC
Since I don’t bear arms myself, I’m gathering that your inclinations to hurl childish insults my way stem from my ideas, which include the notion that we should all be free to defend ourselves.
How that translates into any parallel with a church known for anti-gay, anti-foreigner, anti-Jewish positions escapes me.
That religious congregation enjoys 1st amendment protection, of it’s religious rights and the freedom of speech to share them. What connection they might have to the 2nd Amendment, I can’t say; maybe I missed that bit of news. Please share.
I’d never stop you from defending yourself … how could I? Do you insinuate that I vote for representatives who would enact some law that puts you and yours at risk? I’ve said clearly earlier that I’m as pronounced and radical a left-leaning Liberal as you’ll find anywhere, so I gather my voting record would inspire confidence in you.
Or do you imply that my debating skills and powerful charisma will sway so many anti-gunners to see the error of their ways that the playing field will tilt precariously against your gun-fearing agenda? I wouldn’t worry about that happening. Most people who are possessed of unwarranted animosity toward the freedom to own guns won’t be won over by my simple ideas.
Why the hatred? Are you showing off to the Alpha-nerds? Would you level such adolescent derision at, say, Una Persson (did I spell that right?), who appears to be a well respected long time member with an open mind toward legal gun ownership, if my memory serves? And why would you? Are you afraid to debate theses issues, so you turn a discussion into a bashing of folks who offer other views than your own?
Pro-tip: Don’t bring your dignity with you when you come to the Pit. We welcome the sensitive and vulnerable here, they make good snacks.
I hope you’re hungry. Are your guests typically intimidated thus? Charming, in a veiled-threat sort of way.