You’re straying from your “guns are designed to kill” argument (with which I might quibble, but don’t care enough because I don’t consider it terribly relevant), to a new, false one that “guns don’t serve any useful purpose”. Of course they do, that’s why police departments across the country make them part of the standard equipment issued to their officers. There are reasons millions of people shell out billions of dollars every year for them.
“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson
Do you deny that allowing the Supreme Court to claim such power over Constitutional matters has led to the fulfillment of the warning that Jefferson gave us?
There is no spin you can put on it that can hide the obvious truth here. The Second Amendment asserts a right of the American people to keep and bear arms, and forbids any infringement of this right. Submitting to even something as benign as a background check as a condition of exercising this right is an infringement thereof; and serves no purpose at all other than to facilitate government’s illegally discrimination against some of its citizens by seeking to deny them this right entirely.
There is no honest way to reconcile such a policy with what is clearly stated in the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution is there anything that limits the right to keep and bear arms, or authorizes any government power to limit this right?
Are you contending that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting it is dishonest?
edited to add: Actually, considering the over-the-top invectives already used in this thread against those who dared disagree with the OP, “dishonest” comes off as somewhat mild…but I still don’t like it.
The first half of the Second Amendment. There is one, you know.
The Second Amendment asserts a right of the people, and states that this right “…shall not be infringed.” You are trying to argue that this right may be infringed without violating the Second Amendment.
You’re trying to argue that the Second Amendment does not say what it clearly does say; either that, or that government is not obligated to obey it.
It says no such thing. It states a purpose of the right affirmed therein, but does not, in any way, contradict the remainder of the Amendment which affirms the right and forbids any infringement thereof.
So the answer to my question is…? I don’t want any misunderstanding or accusations of misinterpretation here.
And yet we never seem to hear about some madman killing a bunch of people by dumping them into a swimming pool. Why do you think that is?
Because it’s easier to teach people how to swim then to teach them how to repel bullets?
I’m replying to *your *fucking “point”. If you can’t defend it, not my problem. :rolleyes:
Scroll up. :rolleyes:
Because you don’t think there’s any such a thing, do you? If you do, then what have you *really *supported? What measures do you support now, and what are you doing about it? :dubious:
The fact that a right can be infringed does not mean it doesn’t exist, or that measures must be taken to protect it as far as is reasonable here in the real world, in balance with other affected rights.
Who’s “muddying” what, here?
Or look at the tens of thousands of real people who are really killed by guns every real year. Compare that to the tyranny/militia and quasi-police play-acting stuff you use to defend keeping them. Which one is real and which one is fantasy born of “fear played on by groups to heighten them”? :dubious:
Time to take a look in the damn mirror, fraidy-cat. You’re being played.
So the first half has no real effect at all? Gee, why would the FF’s have even bothered writing it at all, in your opinion? Pretty silly of them to waste that ink, don’tcha think?
Try again.
You had said, “I swear, if there were a baby buggy that killed as many children accidentally as guns do, we’d be screaming to get it off the market. And almost everyone would willingly acquiesce.”
I pointed out that guns (despite there being more than 300 million in the USA today) don’t accidentally kill all that many children. What do mass shootings (which are themselves extremely rare and even more rarely directed at children, and notably, not accidental) have to do with our conversation?
How many people die from drowning or other mishaps in a swimming pool, compared to those who are killed in any manner by madmen?
It seems to me that to focus on any method or tool which a madman might use to kill, entirely misses the point.
Just to point out we’ve had this discussion with **Bob **in another thread. My response then is the same as now:
Have you read Heller vs. DC? Held from the opinion:
Try again yourself.
The question of whether I am calling you “dishonest”?
It seems that perhaps you’re trying to bait me into saying something that will get me moderated for a “personal attack”.
You insist on repeatedly asserting something that is clearly, objectively untrue, that any honest, rational person would see is untrue. You’re trying to argue that words written in black and white do not say what they clearly do say. You might as well be staring at the sun, while denying that it exists.
There are a few reasons why someone might make such an assertion, but I suspect that I cannot now state any such reasons, or speculate about which of them are behind your behavior, without getting dinged by the moderators.
Yes, fascinating document, isn’t it?
You oughta read it sometime.
No-the question was(and still is): Are you contending that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting it is dishonest?
Of course, you still have to accept the authority of The Supreme Court, first.
Only if they rule the way I want them to. Otherwise they’re jackbooted tyrants and out come the weapons. 