EPTAre these people fuckin serious???????
I already hate Arizona, now i have a real reason to!
Arizona is Insane - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
Are these people fuckin serious??????? I already hate Arizona, now i have a real reason to! | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On July 17 2010 05:38 PacketOverflow wrote: The laws of one state do not apply to the entire United States. But people can travel quite freely from one state to another. Also if your federal government doesn't prevent nonsense like this (or even the current laws) then something is inherently wrong with the whole country. At least from my perspective. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On July 17 2010 05:00 Pawsom wrote: Have you ever been in a situation where you could only defend your life and family because you had a handgun? They are there for what COULD happen and not generally for what does happen. That being said I don't think that we should buy any gun we want but just restricting gun access does nothing really. I can't count the number of fully automatic assault rifles i've confiscated and those aren't legal without a ton of permits. At least if you keep gun possession everyone can have them, not just the shitheads. | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On July 16 2010 08:17 sLiniss wrote: Can one person simply throw out gun control laws? No but she can convince a whole bunch of retards to do it for her. what a sluttt | ||
|
Kingsp4de20
United States716 Posts
On July 17 2010 05:50 SilverLeagueElite wrote: With all the guns floating around in Arizona, makes you wonder where all the gunfight is happening. Surely armed people getting into an argument will not end well. You'd think there'd be random shootouts in the middle of the street. Maybe there are but the press doesn't cover it? Umm....yea because everyone who owned a firearm is fucking crazy, you sound like the type of person who shouldnt own a weapon. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 17 2010 04:38 Offhand wrote: The constitution was prefaced with the fact that should it no longer become a suitable document, it is the job of the people to replace it. Combine that with the fact that the constitution has specific provisions for these things called "amendments" which basically say, yes you change, add, or subtract from the constitution. The key point here is that it is the job of the people to replace it. Not the courts. You can pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to change the constitution. Still no argument against Textualism. The ultimate irony is that gun nuts who staunchly oppose any concept of the constitution as a living document also tend to cite their second amendment more then anything else, the first "edit" the constitution recieved. Nothing wrong with that. You wont find a single gun nut who thinks textualism isn't a good idea. Likewise, it's bullshit to say that a 234 year old document could, in any way, predict the needs and wants of a future society. Even if written by 1776 futurists, there's no way one could accurately predict the exact state of society over two centuries from now. Whether or not the constitution was "meant to change" is pointless in the context of this conversation anyway. Again, irrelevant to arguments against textualism. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On July 17 2010 05:55 spinesheath wrote: But people can travel quite freely from one state to another. Also if your federal government doesn't prevent nonsense like this (or even the current laws) then something is inherently wrong with the whole country. At least from my perspective. State governments are autonomous to some extent and are capable of making local laws. The idea being for each state to be an experiment in governance. If your ideology and morals don't align with local laws, you're free to move to a different state. I don't think people have any business trying to force others to accept their ideology. Whether it's the U.S. involved in nation building or one state trying to affect the laws of another. You can extend this to gay marriage, legalized drugs, guns, abortion, etc. Criticize all you will and let Arizona have its' laws and fail or succeed on its' own terms. | ||
|
Zexion
Sweden971 Posts
On July 17 2010 00:45 gameguard wrote: this is politics for u. You spew some of the most insane shit to please a bunch of insane people. If you take the rational approach, uneducated fuckers on both sides of the spectrum will go against you. That is, unfortunately, the downside of today's so called democracy  But hey, it's still better than everything else right? | ||
|
eatmyshorts5
United States1530 Posts
| ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:08 eatmyshorts5 wrote: Ok here's my point of view. I understand that a handgun can be used for for self defense and it can be useful. But heres the thing. I've only heard once in my ENTIRE life where a gun was used in self defense, yet I hear everyday about homicides/murder with guns. Guns are exponentially more lethal than the next common weapon over. But nothing will happen probably considering it's in the constitution. The best argument against gun control I've heard is that the guys who are using them for other things than self defense are going to get them anyway, and removing the right to bear arms would only hurt the law abiding citizen. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
| ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:08 eatmyshorts5 wrote: I've only heard once in my ENTIRE life where a gun was used in self defense, yet I hear everyday about homicides/murder with guns. People often fail to see the entire equation. They fail to see what can't be measured. You can't measure the number of times a person deters a crime with a gun because the incident goes unreported. Nor can you measure how many victims would still be alive, had they been armed and stood a fighting chance. edit for clarity | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On July 17 2010 06:08 kzn wrote: The key point here is that it is the job of the people to replace it. Not the courts. You can pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to change the constitution. Still no argument against Textualism. The courts are one of the three main branches of the government. Specifically the one responsible for interpretation of the law. If textualism was the only standard by which laws are to be interpreted, we don't need lawyers, just high school English teachers. Fortunately, there's concepts such as legislative intent, which takes more then the written law into account and can produce a realistic version of the desired effect of the law. I'd hate to see the result of most landmark cases should the ruling be based strictly on textualist lawyers. EDIT: Funnily enough, the most major proponent of textualism is everyone's favorite reactionary bastard, Anthony Scalia. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:37 Offhand wrote: The courts are one of the three main branches of the government. Specifically the one responsible for interpretation of the law. If textualism was the only standard by which laws are to be interpreted, we don't need lawyers, just high school English teachers. We'd be rather better off if thats all we had. (even though you're wrong) Fortunately, there's concepts such as legislative intent, which takes more then the written law into account and can produce a realistic version of the desired effect of the law. I'd hate to see the result of most landmark cases should the ruling be based strictly on textualist lawyers. Yeah, uh, no. There are tens of viable interpretations for every amendment, and nobody has any clue what was actually intended. | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:29 SilverLeagueElite wrote: You can't measure the number of times a person fends of a crime with a gun because the incident goes unreported. Wait, so if someone broke into your house and started fucking shit up and you fended him off with a gun, you wouldn't file a police report? Or even call 911? You'd just be like "oh well, he's gone now" and go on with your day? | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
Long term though, they'll just start assuming everyone else has guns and adjust for that. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:10 Triscuit wrote: Wait, so if someone broke into your house and started fucking shit up and you fended him off with a gun, you wouldn't file a police report? Or even call 911? You'd just be like "oh well, he's gone now" and go on with your day? The crime has already happened. My previous post edited for clarity. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:23 Adila wrote: Long term though, they'll just start assuming everyone else has guns and adjust for that. You realize that this statement alone means that more gun ownership means less crime, right? | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:48 kzn wrote: You realize that this statement alone means that more gun ownership means less crime, right? How does that logic pan out? It could just as easily lead to more deadly incidents involving criminals. | ||
| ||
