WTF are you bringing me into this for? Just let this obsession of yours go, dude-you’ll be happier for it.
I dunno why you guys are indulging Kable - it matters not at all what arguments you can bring to the table, he’ll keep doing his gloaty-dance for you.
Just like I can do my gloaty-dance for him, since I live in a country just as free (indeed more free in several respects) and with a lot less violent crime.
Its in the original constitution. An interpretation of law is not new law, its just the clarification of what the law has always been.
I bet some of those Tutsis could have used some guns right about then.
Great so if you don’t think it can happen, why not pursue other more possible ways of reducing gun violence.
You can argue for political change but your comments seemed to express disgust for America (or at least one aspect of it that wasn’t going to change). If thats not what you meant and you only made those comments to advocate for change, then OK, sure.
I don’t know if it would right their minds but my impression is that if you asked the people in Israel today, they would want the guns.
Finally!!! I won the internet, now I can cancel my America OnLine account and get some work done.
The original comment was about unilateral disarmament, which is what these bans amount to.
If you don’t want to address the issue of unilateral disarmament then fine, I guess.
Because, it would take WWIII or something like that for it to happen here. You will not change attitudes here, you can try but I doubt you’ll get very far
It was never impossible to run a farm without slaves. People did it in other parts of the world, people did it here in the free states. Sharecropping has been around since the mideival ages. The end of slavery was inevitable, the elimination of guns in our society is not. If we had a slave buyback at the right price, we could have bought the freedom of every slave in the country. I doubt there would have been very many slaves kept in secret. But a gun buyback would not have the same sort of universal subscription.
I do enjoy the comparison to nuclear weapons scattered through this thread.
Tell me, as private citizens with 2nd amendment rights, how come you’re not demanding the right to bear nuclear arms? Or if you like, grenade launchers, land mines, or any other more reasonably priced armaments that would be part of “a well regulated militia”? Are you afraid you’d get laughed at? Trust me, we’re already laughing when you quote that amendment without having read it.
In fact, you should be happy to toss your handguns and shotguns as they have essentially no purpose in modern warfare, unless you happen to own a tank to go along with your PDW.
Oh, wait, you want those to shoot ducks and deer and targets and criminals, not to contribute to any common defense. Hmm. Guess the right to shoot ducks isn’t in the constitution. Let’s quote it anyways and see if it’ll fly.
Hell, same goes for nerve gas. It’s cheap, fun, effective, and only a tiny minority of people would gas their neighbors. How dare we infringe on your right to own what is essentially a toy in order to possibly save lives. Lol.
Beyond all that, I support gun ownership. I would love to own a gun. My brother owns several, and they’re a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. But, and this is the real important part, a normal human with even a vestigial empathetic sense would be happy to see some restrictions on their leisure pastime if it would save lives. Otherwise you might as well be saying “Hey, it’s my car, I have a right to own it, who says I need a driver’s license. Get your hands off my car you commie!”
double post
Sorry Czarcasm, but when I think of a phony I think of you, and that’s why I can respect the honest opinions of say BobLibDem, but not yours.
Hey, now that I got your attention, I got a question for you:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16903196&postcount=433
Right, and we already have a number or restrictions to save lives. We might have even better restrictions that saved more lives, if and only if, a large number in the democrat party hadn’t treated each prior restriction as justification for greater restrictions on their way towards their ultimate goals of total disarmament.
Call me a phoney in a thread I’m not even a part of, then ask me an off-topic question? When it comes to that other thread I’m done jumping through your hoops, because I know it won’t make a difference when it comes to your cartoon stereotype of my opinions. If anyone else wants to discuss that other topic in that other thread, I’ll probably jump back into the conversation over there, but I’m done with you over there.
OK phony, you shouldn’t let it bother you then.
Here’s something i’ll admit I don’t know; to what extent is such an interpretation retroactive? Completely?
Well, he’s gloating because his side won the national debate for the forseeable future. You’re gloating because you live in Canada? The French part of Canada? Other than Tremblant late in the season, you can keep it.
I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court read it when they decided Heller and MacDonald. Perhaps it doesn’t say what you think it says.
The individual right to bear arms is a right to effective self defense not nuclear weapons or grenade launchers. I think there might also be a state right to arm their militia so I think that states should be allowed to own all the things you mention aside from land mines and nuclear weapons.
Then why do we still issue handguns, shotguns and rifles to our soldiers? Force of habit?
According to Heller the constitution provides a right to self defense. You knew that right?
The right to shoot ducks isn’t a constitutional right but it such a popular sport that noone has ever tried to limit that right.
Laugh all you want, you’ve lost the game and now you’re making absurd arguments.
Why do you support gun ownership? Its apparently not for hunting or to protect yourself against criminals. So why do YOU support gun ownership?
Or are you saying that you support gun ownership but you wish there was at least some restrictions on guns because you don’t think there are any right now? Or are you just saying that you want more and that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a poopyhead?
I think that when a court interprets a lawm, they are just stating the law as it always was. So if a court finds the crack sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, then they are saying that the crack sentencing guidelines were always unconstitutional.
We get it, DA. You and** Kable** love guns. You love them almost as much as you love to remind people how you have a constitutional right to love your guns. Those who disagree are obviously gun grabbing socialist swine from Canada, and if not, they should seriously consider moving there.
Ever consider the possibility that your militant defense for the right to bear arms isn’t actually a moral high ground argument but almost certainly a tragic mistake codified in a document hundreds of years old by men who simply didn’t know any better? Just maybe??
sigh… Why do I even bother…
Because you’re a fucking idiot, your arguments are always incredibly stupid, and those of us on your side wish you weren’t on our side? And that applies to any side of any subject you take any side on. You truly are a useless tool. No matter the subject.
That’d be a good start. You’re welcome, now go away, idiot.
Careful now…I’m assuming this isn’t referring to me…
The right to self defense existed before the constitution was drafted. The constitution merely recognized this pre-existing right.
And vice-versa, I suppose, that if a court decides to go the other way, it would be not only non-constitutional again but there wouldn’t be a “gap” where that interpretation didn’t apply?
[QUOTE=Bone]
The right to self defense existed before the constitution was drafted. The constitution merely recognized this pre-existing right.
[/QUOTE]
Not “merely”, surely. “Merely” would imply that it recognised just the right to self defense, that’s it, period. It qualifies that right.
No country that requires its citizens to license and register their handguns before they can roll around orgasmically in a giant pile of them can truly be called “free,” sir.
I used to wonder that. Then I had to defend myself with my pistol in a home invasion and it saved my life just like it saves the lives of a lot of others. Since then, I’ve been kind of partial to those guns, and they sure are fun to shoot. You ever consider any of that? just maybe??
OK, I’ve made a number of arguments. Name perhaps 3 that you think are specifically stupid, and why.
Truer words have never been spoken.