Or if he were a real, total, flaming idiot, something from CNS.
Ok, I think I’m starting to figure it out. That was another joke, right?
Kable - just stop. If your position has merit, argue on the facts. This sideshow routine you’ve exhibited is unbecoming.
Nope, during the time that the economy tanked, and stayed tanked, guns sales did great.
Proving gun company profits were not just part of the generalized economic recovery.
Well, he tried. All he has is “the attempts made by the Obama administration to seek popular support for new gun legislation resulted only in terrifying a portion of the populace into purchasing more guns.”
That’s the core of it, and it’s arguably accurate.
But it’s all he has.
Yes, fine, but not what I quoted. You said:
Was that intended to be a joke?
Not all I got but really all I need right?
Okay, I put in my order for 100 shares of the Smith and Wesson Holding Company, based in part on their performance over the last year. When it goes through, I’ll officially be an exploiter of American misery.
$1250? You big spender.
It is not easy to unite the SDMB. I want to thank Kable for helping to reveal, in this most appropriate of seasons, the ability of this board to come together in harmony to declare that he is a fucking douchebag.
In retrospect, I should have put a smileyface behind the comment about Canada. I like Canada for many reasons, I don’t like all their gun laws but I could probably live with them. I have been a proponent of licensing and registration of guns for a while now and Canada is a anecdotal example of licensing and registration leading to large decreases in gun murder (without a commensurate increase in knife murders (the suicide data seems to indicate that people find ways to kill themselves through alternate means, it simply doesn’t drop anywhere near as fast as the murder rate). I just happen to think that you shouldn’t ban anything and gun grabbers try to ban small subsets of firearms every time they get a chance and like Kable says, it invariably drives up sales of that subset of firearms.
Of course, its possible. And the constitution even recognizes that by providing a means to amend the constitution. So all you need is 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the states and you can say good bye to the second amendment. But that is about as likely as repealing the part of the first amendment that prevents Christianity from becoming the state religion.
Seriously, why DO you? You’re doomed to fail and its probably for the best that you fail.
I’m not sure I understand your question.
How does the second amendment qualify the right to self defense?
Yes, that one.
Then you’ve been keeping it a secret. So you think that the supreme court is wrong? That’s fine. But your original posts indicated that you thought that I was quoting the second amendment without knowing what it said. If you want to chalk that up to hyperbole, then fine but you are doing a really shitty job of building credibility on this topic.
No they’re not, like all spring traps, they are indiscrimiante, they are not portable or targetted.
Its part of constitutional law. It interprets the words in the constitution to tell us what they mean. Heller tells us what the second amendment means.
Where do I say that you cannot limit everyone’s freedom in order to ensure public safety?
I agree, we should stop giving guns to people who go off and kill school children. Ermm… you do realize that the Newtown shooter got his guns by killing his mother and stealing her guns, right?
And I agree that handguns are responsible for the vast majority of gun homicides, Heller specifically protects handguns and as I explained above, Heller interprets the constitution, it tells us what the constitution says.
I think you are conflating conservative with gun nut. There is a lot of overlap because less urban areas tend to be pro-gun and conservative but there is no necessary connection between the two.
Do you think that internet porn should come with a warning that if you try this at home you might get pregnant? Or should we be teaching this stuff in schools right before the gun safety classes?
I think his point is that its a vanishingly small number.
I don’t think we will need the second amendment to protect ourselves from tyranny anytime soon (although I thought we might be headed that way under Bush), but I think it was at least part of the thought behind the second amendment at the time it was written.
[QUOTE=Kable]
Smith & Wesson is a big supporter of the NRA
[/quote]
Yeah now they are after being spanked so hard they almost went out of business.
Well if you have gotten rid of guns in the hands of criminals, a lot of the pro-gun argument evaporates or gets weaker.
Maybe, if one considers Jefferson’s “blood of tyrants and patriots” sentiment, but the actual text of the 2nd suggests to me to need to protect a “free state” from an outside aggressor like, for example… England. I don’t know offhand of any part of the U.S. Constitution or Bill or Rights that says armed rebellion is okay under certain circumstances.
Douchebags truly are the Reason for the Season.
Hey, Damuri Ajashi, you seem like a thoughtful guy, and very capable of arguing your point. So even though you don’t know me from Adam–and even though we’re in the Pit–would you mind doing me a big favor?
Please, please, please stop using the term “gun grabber?” It’s a bullshit strawman and really detracts from the conversation. I expect nothing more from Kable; he’s kinda stupid and doesn’t know any better. I think you aren’t and do.
And might you consider a post that uses less that a metric giga-ton of electrons every once in a while too?
No, but the founding fathers made their feelings clear when they seized control from the Brits, didn’t they? their effort was not certainly going to end in success, but it did, all because Americans used guns to fight the Brits to a standstill long enough to enlist the French fleet to settle things. then we turned our backs on the French when Their rebels chopped off the heads of our friends.
Not to say that I think anyone resisting the government’s will would have any chance at all unless the army took their side in the first place. Shooting at soldiers trying to keep the peace is not a good way to enlist their support.
A lot of gun rights talk is code for ‘I need my guns to protect my family against the evil black hordes who are coming to rape my women and eat my stores’ Most semi-intelligent gun rights folks really just want protection in their homes and political security that no one is going to restrict that ability.
I live where lots of people have concealed carry permits. Where government is removing restrictions on where and when you can ‘concealed carry’.
I’m out and about every day, stores, restaurants, places of assembly, parks, etc. and have yet to see one person that I could see was carrying. they are doing a great job of ‘conceal’.
Real deterrence only results from open carry. More people die, overall, when people carry weapons, but there are fewer direct assaults if you are openly carrying a gun.
No cites, just from reading widely.
That’s a lost cause, friend. I tried to tell him about how the quote button is your friend, and how annoying the wall of quotes is, but he appears to be challenged by the concept.
It might be in the declaration of independence if you think that the constitution can be read in light of other foundational documents. What happens if democracy fails?
Some people think the term state might refer to the several states, the notion being that the armed states can counter tyranny from the center (see hunger games 
)
I also use the term gun nut. I use it as shorthand. What term would people prefer? Anti-gunner?
I try but as Hentor mentiions below, its probably a lost cause. I used to reply to each post separately then people complained that I didn’t use the multiquote function. The only really useful suggestion I’ve had was to post using my phone so that I would be motivated to make my posts really short.
Presumably the army would be split between following orders and siding with the rebels.
Otherwise, the rebels have a long tough road ahead and are probably just some radical minority faction.
Well, sure… hence the need for a “well-regulated militia” to resist invaders or outsiders, but I’m not familiar with any minor clauses that say “In the event of intolerable abuses by congress, citizens are encouraged to shoot them.”
As a practical matter, the need for the 2nd evaporated with the establishment of a standing army. If the phrasing had instead been “Being necessary to the security of a free individual, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” then I’d agree it offers clear support to the idea of resisting one’s own government should the need arise.
Well, that’s explicitly addressed in the DoI’s preamble:
…but I’m not aware of any part of this that got translated over to the Constitution, hence it has no legal weight. Heck, the DoI poetically declares that all men are created equal, but the more banal Constitution didn’t take this to mean slavery was abolished. That amendment came almost a century later.
I haven’t, actually. Wasn’t planning to.
Pro-lifer. Ha.