| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 27 2008 13:16 Haemonculus wrote: Yeah totally. The Judicial branch of the government deciding what is and what isn't constitutional? Who the hell came up with that stupid idea? You're an idiot. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 27 2008 13:13 NovaTheFeared wrote: If the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, our Constitution does include a method for revision and it's not judicial fiat. Yes. Judicial activism undermines the rule of law. This amendment should have been revised by the proper methods as the technology developed. By my reading, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to arm themselves as they please, up to and including nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction. For it to get to this point, clearly somebody hasn't been taking care of business. On the other hand, I can't imagine why anybody would support a handgun ban in DC. The crime rate is terrible. Criminals have guns, and you're clearly not going to keep them out of their hands. So you've got the good guys, and the bad guys. The bad guys have guns, which they intend to use against the good guys. You want to take the guns away from the good guys? Yes, it is that simple. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On June 27 2008 11:15 Jibba wrote: It's sad that we divide it between left and right, when being a justice should have nothing to do with political leanings. Yeah I was thinking about that. All these 5-4 landmark cases make me uneasy. There should be a greater consensus about matters which solely regard interpretation of well-known documents.. But it's no surprise when you considering the rigamorole of new appointments. Ridiculously partisan motivations for selection of justices. You got people rabid for justices to die when their party's leader is in exec branch lol | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2008 13:52 Funchucks wrote: Yes. Judicial activism undermines the rule of law. This amendment should have been revised by the proper methods as the technology developed. By my reading, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to arm themselves as they please, up to and including nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction. For it to get to this point, clearly somebody hasn't been taking care of business. On the other hand, I can't imagine why anybody would support a handgun ban in DC. The crime rate is terrible. Criminals have guns, and you're clearly not going to keep them out of their hands. So you've got the good guys, and the bad guys. The bad guys have guns, which they intend to use against the good guys. You want to take the guns away from the good guys? Yes, it is that simple. The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix. Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind. *high five* ![[image loading]](http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20071210/293.scrubs.121007.jpg) | ||
|
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
Thanks, didnt want to spend too much talking about reading comprehension. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote: The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix. People who argue about gun control details and don't know what "semi-automatic" means bug the hell out of me. Police pistols? Semi-automatic weapons! Typical duck-hunting shotguns? Semi-automatic weapons! Typical .22 hunting, target, or plinking rifles? Semi-automatic weapons! Common deer-hunting rifles? Semi-automatic weapons! Semi-automatic means that you pull the trigger, it fires one shot, and then it is ready to fire again when you pull the trigger again, without manual reloading or cocking. Fully automatic means that when you hold the trigger, it continues firing rapid shots until it runs out of ammunition. Compare: single-shot: after firing, you must manually put a new bullet in before you can fire again bolt action: after firing, you must work a bolt to chamber a new round (typical of deer rifles) pump action: after firing, you must work a sliding pump to chamber a new round (common in shotguns) double action revolver: functionally equivalent to a semi-automatic pistol, but more limited ammunition capacity, harder to unload/reload, and more difficult to confirm that it is properly unloaded (greater risk of accidental discharge) single action revolver: you must manually pull the hammer back before firing each round burst fire: between semi-automatic and fully automatic, it will repeat rapid shots while you hold the trigger up to some small limit, usually 3 rounds (typically burst fire is a selectable mode on an assault rifle, along with semi-automatic and fully-automatic) Semi-automatic pistols are the most appropriate for concealed carry. The only serious alternative is the double-action revolver, which still fires in the same way as the semi-automatic pistol. Probably the most important qualification of the semi-automatic pistol is that it is easy to unload. Assuming you have not chambered a round (and you should not keep a round chambered while carrying a concealed weapon in day-to-day life), you simply remove the magazine. With a double-action revolver, a round is always "chambered" (so to speak... I don't know if this is a technically accurate term to use, but it is equivalent), leaving you with one less line of defense against accidental discharge, and if you want to unload it, you have to dump out 6 individual cartridges instead of one tidy magazine. One may stick, and you may not notice, leaving the gun accidentally loaded. You may lose bullets here and there. You may be discouraged by the inconvenience of unloading and reloading, and end up leaving the gun loaded more often. If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols, you're against firearm safety. If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment. The bolt or pump action alternatives are only slightly slower to fire than semi-automatics anyway - the main advantage of the semi-automatic is that you can't screw up working the action when you're overexcited. | ||
|
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." People, not person. Not to mention the first part of the sentence has not applied for the last 60 years. | ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
On June 27 2008 12:03 Gun Dude wrote: Except that the courts have continuously ruled that this ISN'T the case. Even in this decision it was reiterated that the militia is defined as all males of a fighting age. It is the FAILURE of Congress for not doing its duty to create the standards of readiness. However, that isn't an issue. The first clause was a 'reminder' of sorts to us as to WHY the right to keep and bear arms is important. It is the right that ultimately ensures all the rights. If government becomes tyrannical, a well armed and drilled population could take up arms just as we did when we got rid of the British Crown. It is not something that any of us would LIKE to happen, but it is also not something we should ever WISH we could do. Google "Appleseed Rifle Training" for an idea of a grass roots effort to train the population to become good shooters in the spirit of the forefathers that took up arms in 1775. So you're saying that the reason for having guns is that, just in case our government becomes tyrannical, every single male of fighting age should be all set to instantly overthrow it? Not just willing, but ready, armed, and trained? That's a terrible idea. There's a lot of countries like that, and most of them in Africa... they suffer from constant civil war. On June 27 2008 12:03 Gun Dude wrote: Uh-huh... And what churches shall we ban? What books? What other category of rights are you so ready to just throw away? The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit. You can be sure that the draftees of the Constitution knew that technology would improve. You really don't see a difference between banning a particular type of weapon and banning a book? You don't have a right to "own whatever the hell you want to own no matter how dangerous"! Rifling came after constitution, but regardless, I don't see why you should be allowed to own whatever the military uses. I mean the military uses nuclear missiles and stealth bombers. Should we be allowed to own them too? I don't know why this is such an inflammatory issue. I think guns are cool, but I don't have this NEED to arm myself for apocalypse, like some people do. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans never need to use a gun in their whole lives. | ||
|
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote: Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind. What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue." On June 27 2008 15:07 Eskii wrote: I Disagree with the decision, typical non american eh? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." People, not person. Not to mention the first part of the sentence has not applied for the last 60 years. Wrong. It's just become unpopular for people to declare themselves as armed citizens, which is why we keep quiet about it. And to reiterate: Each of the two clauses in the Second Amendment cannot stand without the other. The militia is comprised of the people. If the people have no right to keep and bear arms, neither does the militia. An unarmed militia is, by definition, not. On June 27 2008 16:40 Luddite wrote: I dunno how I feel about responding to someone named "Gun Dude" with 1 post, but I'll give it a shot. So you're saying that the reason for having guns is that, just in case our government becomes tyrannical, every single male of fighting age should be all set to instantly overthrow it? Not just willing, but ready, armed, and trained? That's a terrible idea. There's a lot of countries like that, and most of them in Africa... they suffer from constant civil war. You really don't see a difference between banning a particular type of weapon and banning a book? You don't have a right to "own whatever the hell you want to own no matter how dangerous"! Rifling came after constitution, but regardless, I don't see why you should be allowed to own whatever the military uses. I mean the military uses nuclear missiles and stealth bombers. Should we be allowed to own them too? I don't know why this is such an inflammatory issue. I think guns are cool, but I don't have this NEED to arm myself for apocalypse, like some people do. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans never need to use a gun in their whole lives. There are numerous reasons to be armed. One of them is to protect oneself against a tyrannical government. History has shown on numerous occasions what exactly happens to large groups of people when they are disarmed. Sometimes they're just lined up and shot. Sometimes soldiers and other government agents force a skirmish line of prisoners through a mine field, taking bets on who loses what. Sometimes they just throw you in with a hundred other people and pump gas into the chamber. They do all sorts of things. Now, I HIGHLY doubt the US will ever come to that point. I, like every other citizen, wish some things here were different, but they aren't kicking down doors and taking people as their slaves. The purpose for being armed in this sense isn't to overthrow the government or some other radical bullshit--it's to be prepared to stand up to a tyrant should it ever come to that. And no--the people who read the Constitution/Bill of Rights/etc. and took it seriously don't differentiate. If you step on my Second Amendment rights acknowledged to exist by the Constitution, I'm coming for your first. It's NOT okay to invade one's rights; I don't care what number it is on a list. A right is a right--end of discussion. | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
This is so unbelievably stupid. You can do much better I think. I am rather indifferent to gun control. However, rpf, can you please give me your position on the following reasoning: If a criminal watches me getting money from an ATM and now wants to rob me, he will probably threaten me with whatever weapon he has and take my money. I am unarmed, robbed, alive. Now, if the mugger has good reason to assume I am armed and trained to use a gun, why would he take chances? He will stab/shoot me in the back straight away and take my money. I am armed, robbed, dead. Essentially, this assumes that if there is gun control, an illegally armed criminal feels he has the upper hand and can use thread instead of actual violence. Please don't give me counter examples where I could have shot the criminal but address this specific point. | ||
|
Cobalt
United States441 Posts
On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote: "Gun Control: It worked for Hitler and the KKK!" This is so unbelievably stupid. You can do much better I think. I am rather indifferent to gun control. However, rpf, can you please give me your position on the following reasoning: If a criminal watches me getting money from an ATM and now wants to rob me, he will probably threaten me with whatever weapon he has and take my money. I am unarmed, robbed, alive. Now, if the mugger has good reason to assume I am armed and trained to use a gun, why would he take chances? He will stab/shoot me in the back straight away and take my money. I am armed, robbed, dead. Essentially, this assumes that if there is gun control, an illegally armed criminal feels he has the upper hand and can use thread instead of actual violence. Please don't give me counter examples where I could have shot the criminal but address this specific point. Until rpf responds, here's my take on one possibility. If the mugger assumes you are trained to use a gun, he knows he must kill you in order to take your money. I believe, in this case, the deterrent lies in the fact that a petty thief would be unwilling to kill, for fear of the consequences. Thus, he wouldn't even approach you. Of course, this works on the assumption that people rob others in a manner like you describe simply because they know the person is unarmed. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7231 Posts
| ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
I didnt say if you don't think like me your wrong. I said if you think/believe something incorrectly you are wrong. As for defending youself, we don't need guns to do that. Thats been proven numerous times. Who's protecting criminals and how are they doing it ? you think stricter gun laws protect criminals ? hardly....usually stricter laws make it more difficult to be a criminal; speaking from personal experience. You love guns, its cool and im alright with that. But honestly do you really believe that without guns you would be worse off? I doubt it, having a gun doesnt make it less likely your gonna get robbed or shot, it just means you have the option to get in a gunfight, or to kill some tweeked out crack head. Your no safer, its all in your head. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote: Sounds good to me.If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment. That too. | ||
|
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
On June 27 2008 11:15 Jibba wrote: It's sad that we divide it between left and right, when being a justice should have nothing to do with political leanings. Can't say it any better than this. At least maybe we could have more than a two party system, where there would be more perspective put onto the situation by these judges, instead of just, "OH NOEZ THATZ LEFT WINGZ, I MUST VOTE CUZ I ARE DEMOKRAT!" Too bad they have to conform though. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2008 17:10 rpf wrote: What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue." Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 27 2008 13:13 NovaTheFeared wrote: If the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, our Constitution does include a method for revision and it's not judicial fiat. a formal method maybe, one that ignores the dynamics of political action. judicial fiat is even in the worst of times reasoned out, however terrible the reason. there is a process of reflection and restraint built into the legal theory and process that makes things much more than fiat. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 27 2008 22:24 Romance_us wrote: Can't say it any better than this. At least maybe we could have more than a two party system, where there would be more perspective put onto the situation by these judges, instead of just, "OH NOEZ THATZ LEFT WINGZ, I MUST VOTE CUZ I ARE DEMOKRAT!" Too bad they have to conform though. To get away from the two party system we would have to totally rewrite the way that our electoral system works. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance." | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs PianO
Flash vs Speed
WardiTV Team League
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Leta
Queen vs Jaedong
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
RSL Revival
TriGGeR vs Cure
ByuN vs Rogue
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
