While we’re talking about strawmen… :rolleyes:
Politicians tend to say and do things that keep them in power. If it gets them votes, then that’s what they’ll go for.
Why do the anti-Constitution crowd have such a fixation on penises? 
Oh boy does this mean I get to keep my flamethrower?
You have a flamethrower? Cool! Can I see it?
A flamethrower is more of an ‘area weapon’ or ‘explosive weapon’ than a firearm. That is, you could say that it ‘projects an explosion’ in a way.
Are flamethrowers banned? I don’t know.
Should they be banned? Given that I’ve never heard of one being used in the commission of a crime, and that they appear to be no danger to society, I don’t see a good reason to ban them if they aren’t already. But I don’t think that they would fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. YMMV.
For the record, I’m not anti-gun and didn’t support the ban but the “well regulated militia” vs individual ownership is a question that has never been decided by SCOTUS. As it stands, there has never been a definitive finding by the Supreme Court that individual citizens have the right to own firearms. You don’t have to be anti-gun to believe that the militia qualification is binding.
Personally, I think the framers probably were thinking of citizen militias and intended the amendment to apply to individuals but it’s far from a settled question and the contempt and hostility heaped on people who interpret it that way is unwarranted and unfair.
The bitching and fighting and lobbying was because this completely meaningless ban was spun so hard and it sounded so good to the uninformed (Assault Weapons, who needs one of those, they’re scary looking) that gun owners were worried that our rights might get “bullshitted away” in the future (slippery slope and all that).
Unclviny
In what way have I advocated anything unconstitutional?
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution. There are people who want to get rid of the Second Amendment; therefore, they are opposed to part of the Constitution.
How does it ever get ammended in the first place if no-one is allowed to say anything against what is already in it?
You can be opposed to a clause in something without being against the existence of the whole btw…
No one has said do away with the second amendment.
It’s all about the interpretation of the amendment.
No one in this thread, but there are people and organisations who have said it.
These same people would be up in arms if other people applied their standards to other Amendments.
First of all, it’s an open question as to whether the 2nd Amendment applies to private individuals. You do not get to claim your personal interpretation as the “correct” one and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being “anti-Constitution.”
Secondly, I have not advocated any gun bans. If you are going to accuse ME of being “anti-Constitution” could you please point where I, personally, have advocated any abridgement of the US Constitution.
Thirdly, how about a cite for anyone with any sort of political power who has advocated a literal repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Interpreting the amendment differently than you do is not the same as “getting rid of” the amendment.
If you don’t want people to think that you’re a typical anti-Second Amendment type you may want to tone down the rhetoric, especially the stuff about phalluses.
I didn’t. I said ‘I think it should be protected’ and YMMV.
I responded to your post, but I did not mean you specifically. I was speaking generally. You may put yourself in that group or not.
I don’t feel like looking up the several cites that have been given by people in other threads. They exist, if you would care to look for yourself.
So this thread is an admission by the “slippery slope” proponents that they were absolutely wrong?
In that case, thank you for the apology. It’s so nice when people can admit their mistakes and move on.
Oh yeah? What about all that “cold, dead hands” stuff? And just who has Charleton Heston’s guns now that his appendages fit the job description?
As Thomas Jefferson once said, bad legislation is just that. . . bad.
That act had more holes than my underwear, and smelled about the same. And enforcing it on the streets was a near nightmare, from what I heard. . .
But, as far as some laws, I personally do support states’ rights to limit what can and cannot be borne. In my home state of New Jersey, I can fully appreciate limiting what 750k+ in one county ought to be carrying, versus North Dakota or Montana where the 6 people that live (combined) there can openly carry without hurting anyone or anything.
Tripler
Here’s your 98 cents in change.
Here’s the thing. I’m a civil libertarian. I believe in the Bill of Rights and don’t want to mess with it. I believe in a right of individuals to defend themselves and to own weapons. Philosophically, it’s a position I agree with.
But I also find a lot of the rhetoric and personalities on the pro-gun side to overbearing, absurdly hostile, fetishistic and obsessive. Just because I think people have the right to own guns doesn’t mean I can’t think the gun culture is distasteful and obnoxious.
To me it’s like those guys in their 30’s I see playing with magic cards in the comic book stores. I would defend tooth and nail their right to do so but I still think they’re dorky and kind of pathetic.