| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:13 mmp wrote: If you'd taken a TL safety course in posting this would not have happened. I guess posters should have to submit fingerprints and register their keyboards.  | ||
|
Tomnki
United States62 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:08 lu_cid wrote: Ok, have fun fighting against the government's tanks and fighter jets with your shotgun. Funny even with all of that we still can't control the afghanis. Those mean nothing, look at Vietnam, Afghanistan when the USSR was attacking and it the US there now. Just because you have the best stuff doesn't mean shit as has been shown again and again. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:02 lu_cid wrote: The 2nd amendment really accomplishes nothing now that such sophisticated weapons exist... That's not really the problem. The second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear small and simple Arms, shall not be infringed." | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On July 16 2010 09:59 Kalpman wrote: It's attitudes like this thats keeps crime rates and "death by firearm" - numbers so high in the US... Thank god you're not all gun loving freaks with paranoia like articles like these suggest you are  Edit: At least this is the impression I get from following this spectacle from over here, I sure TL members are far too intelligent to agree with these laws though. Why not just ban guns altogether? Wouldn't this make your society a lot safer? Maybe. But then you have a monopoly of force in the hands of the government. Our second amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms. Whether that means an organized militia or has an individualist spin is debated. Not to mention there are a couple hundred million guns in the US. Even if you repealed the second amendment you'd be stuck with the problem of finding all of these guns. I own multiple guns, but I don't have any issue with businesses or schools banning weapons as they see fit. If there were schools where the students\administration\teachers etc decided in favor of allowing weapons, I'd probably do my best to convince them otherwise if the data supported my point. I don't see the sense in outright banning or allowing weapons by state decision when it deals with private business, though. | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:09 brain_ wrote: Typical response- read the rest of my post that I edited in (I hit "submit" prematurely). Additionally: 1) Under the 2nd Amendment, we don't have to be constrained to shotguns. 2) Government would be far more reluctant to suppress an armed population. Imagine an insurgency led by Americans, instead of uneducated and incompetent Iraqis... 3) The sentiment that "people should not be able to defend themselves because they'd lose a fight with the army" is ridiculous. I never said it should be done away with... but who are you defending yourself against? | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
| ||
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
Oh wait, if they did that we wouldn't have any republicans...(not necessarily a bad thing) | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
There were SIX scenes of her shooting THREE different weapons (and one where her son was shooting)! The only way to improve this ad would have been to have her half-naked holding a heavy machine gun with this year's playmates dancing in the background! + Show Spoiler + Do people in the US really vote because of stuff like this? Ad included: - pictures of her face - a corny phrase - 7 shooting scenes (with a variety of weapons) - mentions that she is a conservative christian Ad did not include: - what she plans to do in office But honestly, I am sure this will be one of the very few ads I will NEVER forget! | ||
|
Tomnki
United States62 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:21 Chriamon wrote: When are they going to use IQ as a credential for public office? It is really the more deserving attribute to require of those in power. Oh wait, if they did that we wouldn't have any republicans...(not necessarily a bad thing) Ya, because one party states have worked out so well before. Oh wait, no they don't. | ||
|
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:17 Myles wrote: I'm all for responsible people being able to carry their weapons when and where they choose. At the same time, we need measures in place to keep weapons out of the wrong peoples hands, which is a more difficult prospect. However, one thing I'm sure of is that restricting gun rights is the wrong way to lower crime. You sound like you're a closet libertarian. Come out and enjoy it. We like rational thinkers. And Arizona isn't insane. I don't think you guys realize just how many illegal immigrants there are along the southwestern border. I work with at least 3 and I'm in Nevada, which doesn't even touch the Mexican border. [Right wing conservative nutjob]And if everyone carried a gun, the psychos that go on a rampage in a mall or a college campus might think twice if everybody is packing.[/] | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
Do you not understand how the Constitution works? Nobody ever claimed that it was supposed to foresee every single issue America encountered and provide the answer. The point is to make sure that the government doesn't turn into a tyranny. If you think the 2nd Amendment isn't right, and should restrict ownership to certain types of weapons - guess what, there's a method in place by which you can have the Amendment changed. Its called Congress. But until you pass another amendment, given that this is the USA, the 2nd Amendment says only what it says, and there is no justification for applying interpretations based on what the founding fathers thought or intended or any other bullshit. Its text. It has a precise meaning when read without interpretations. That is the only meaning which is binding. tl;dr: dont like the 2nd amendment? repeal it. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:24 VorcePA wrote: You sound like you're a closet libertarian. Come out and enjoy it. We like rational thinkers. LOL, I was told a similar thing in another thread. I'd say it's a pretty accurate summation of my views, though there are crazy libertarians out there like in any other party. | ||
|
VorcePA
United States1102 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:26 kzn wrote: tl;dr: dont like the 2nd amendment? repeal it. While I tend to agree that if you don't like something you should go through the necessary steps to remove it, getting any of the Bill of Rights repealed is a laughable cause. And with that in mind, I'd campaign against it, because I like our first 10 so huggy muggy much. | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
| ||
|
Tookie22
United States187 Posts
this is why the rest of the world hates us can i move to europe? User was warned for this post | ||
|
Tomnki
United States62 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote: Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. In washington state you can already carry weapons onto university grounds. You just aren't allowed in any buildings with them. | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: That's not really the problem. The second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear small and simple Arms, shall not be infringed." I just don't think regular people have the resources to posess anything beyond that... | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 16 2010 10:30 VorcePA wrote: While I tend to agree that if you don't like something you should go through the necessary steps to remove it, getting any of the Bill of Rights repealed is a laughable cause. And with that in mind, I'd campaign against it, because I like our first 10 so huggy muggy much. If thats the case then it shouldn't be repealed. If you disagree you disagree with more than just the 2nd amendment. You disagree with the fundamental principles of democratic government. And in that case, you're pretty much as big a wingnut as I am. But at least I admit it. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Voting for someone b/c they have gun skills may be silly, but likely most people are not voting for a candidate solely for their gun skills. Besides, haven't you seen Napoleon Dynamite? Constituents like candidates with skills! Also, it is a proven fact that gun control only effects those who obey the law, while gun ownership discourages many crimes. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://freestateproject.org/images/gun_rights_slaves.240.jpg)
