|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution.
The Constitution is our basis of law and order. Without it, we have no rule of law. It's a social contract between the people and our government, essentially. We agree to submit to their power in trade for them following the rules contained within that document. There is a process for amending it should it be determined there is a flaw that needs to be fixed (and this has happened dozens of times).
|
On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution.
The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand.
It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights.
|
On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution.
You misunderstand... The reason people get caught up on the exact phrasing is precisely because people try to use the argument that the founder's only intended militias to be armed. If that argument did not exist, the debate about the interpretation of the constitution would indeed be largely irrelevant.
|
On December 30 2012 15:08 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 14:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 14:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 14:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 08:32 Keldrath wrote:On December 30 2012 03:15 heliusx wrote:On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement. You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
District of Columbia v. Heller And they are wrong and supporting the new individual interpretation, so lets not go down that road again. Of course I'm going to side with the expert on it over the supreme court, just like I side with the scientists when the head of the house science committee says something stupid like a womans body has ways to prevent getting pregnant in the case of rape. wouldn't the real experts be the people who actually wrote the Bill of Rights and other Founding Fathers? they almost universally saw it as an individual right. James Madison wrote it, it doesn't matter what the rest of their opinions were on it, and he wanted it to be a safeguard so states would have the rights to form well regulated militias to safeguard the people in the case of a potential federal military coup. It was specifically written by him in such a way as to safeguard that collective right. And that was enforced and the prevailing way it was enforced for hundreds of years until the recent individual rights interpretation gained popularity because gun manufacturers wanted to make more money, and people fell for it. Now we've got a supreme court, such as the current one, that disregards the actual text and reinterprets it as they see fit, all with the backing of the gun manufacturers and the NRA. It's a fact that they are misrepresenting what it says to further their own agendas. People don't like it, but its true whether they accept it or not, they are the ones ignoring the constitution, not the ones calling for gun control. James Madison wrote it, but the others accepted it and drafted it. their opinions certainly do matter, as it was under their opinions that the right was accepted into American society and law. further, do you have any reason to believe that Madison believed it to be solely a collective right, and not as also an individual right? it was also always enforced as an individual right, as the right of one citizen to bear arms has always and universally been protected, not as his being a part of an organized militia, but as his ability to form a militia at any moment using his own weapons. every single leading legal scholar of the Founding times saw it as both a collective and an individual right. otherwise, at least someone would have affirmed, in writing, that it was distinctly not an individual right. this never happened, and in fact, universally, the opposite has happened. No it wasn't, it was always treated as a collective right, one that wasn't extended to ordinary civilians but to militia members. It came up to the supreme court a small number of times and in each one it was ruled in the collective rights. the most recent one was in 1939 US vs Miller, where the judges said and I quote "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A couple quotes from James Madison "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government." "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." It was always about a well regulated and trained militia, composed of the people, it's a citizens army. And if you really want to go into the linguistics of it, go back quite a few pages to where I talked about it. Dennis Baron is a professor of linguistics, and specializes in linguistics pertaining to that time period, the amendment was written in such a way that the half of it was not to be ignored, it was important for establishing the justification for the second half of it. It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is "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." Not only is their 3 commas, not 1, like most people mistakenly believe, but you aren't supposed to ignore the whole first part of the sentence just because a commas there, because that's not how commas worked in the 18th century. The states have a right to have a militia, the people of the states have a right to join the militia, and when in the militia they are to be well regulated and they are guaranteed the right to bear arms in that militia. It's a safeguard against federal military coups. It's not difficult.
US v. Miller is talking about reasonable gun regulation, not gun rights. Since the gun cannot be reasonably wielded in a militia, it is subject to restrictions. However, this says nothing about permissions to own items that are reasonable battlefield weapons, such as assault rifles, handguns, and hunting rifles.
Also the whole "must join militia" thing is bunk. If it were to read that way, SCOTUS would have to permit militias. The militias would form everywhere at gun clubs, free membership, no obligations. They are now members of militias and have the right to own guns. It would be painfully easy to get around this issue. It would also bring up problems with our Federal military structure wrt reservists and guardsmen. You also then have the issues of burden with joining a militia, as you need weapons training to be an efficient militia. How is a man supposed to join a militia if he has no weapon? Also, my gut feeling as a conlaw guy is that this would ultimately end up in MORE weapons being legal. If the militia can make a half-baked case for why bombs are relevant to their militia, they could own them, much less high caliber firearms and military grade equipment now being in civilian hands. It would be a disaster for gun control advocates.
|
On December 31 2012 06:05 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand. It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights.
Not only does this post reek of xenophobic stupidity, it signposts a strong ignorance in regards to the genesis of the Magna Carta. "Forefathers fought and died" in this case looks a lot more like "a bunch of rich barons pissed at King John took advantage of French backing and forced him to surrender arbitrary rule". One can discuss the history of "rights" without resorting to fairytale and exaggeration.
|
The whole constitution is "we the people". All amendments, the bill of rights confirm the rights of the people and protect against government.
So why is it when it comes to the second amendment gun grabbers and anti constitution people say the second amendment doesn't apply to "the people"? I mean it clearly states:"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here is the version that Thoman Jefferson signed: 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. This means neither a militia, nor the right of the people to own and bear guns shall be infringed. Its as clear as day that the second amendment protects militias(who can fight for the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic) and protects the right of the people to own and bear arms.
So all the gun grabbers and constitution hating groups you need to either amend the constitution or shut it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
Crime is way down in the last several years in the USA, as gun ownership is up.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
So every gun ban supporter is technically and literally enemy of the USA and a traitor.
|
On December 31 2012 06:14 Zergofobic wrote:The whole constitution is " we the people". All amendments, the bill of rights confirm the rights of the people and protect against government. So why is it when it comes to the second amendment gun grabbers and anti constitution people say the second amendment doesn't apply to "the people"? I mean it clearly states:"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Here is the version that Thoman Jefferson signed: 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. This means neither a militia, nor the right of the people to own and bear guns shall be infringed. Its as clear as day that the second amendment protects militias(who can fight for the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic) and protects the right of the people to own and bear arms. So all the gun grabbers and constitution hating groups you need to either amend the constitution or shut it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/Crime is way down in the last several years in the USA, as gun ownership is up. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crimeSo every gun ban supporter is technically and literally enemy of the USA and a traitor.
Just yelling the same thing louder doesn't make it a more compelling argument.
|
On December 31 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 06:14 Zergofobic wrote:The whole constitution is " we the people". All amendments, the bill of rights confirm the rights of the people and protect against government. So why is it when it comes to the second amendment gun grabbers and anti constitution people say the second amendment doesn't apply to "the people"? I mean it clearly states:"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Here is the version that Thoman Jefferson signed: 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. This means neither a militia, nor the right of the people to own and bear guns shall be infringed. Its as clear as day that the second amendment protects militias(who can fight for the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic) and protects the right of the people to own and bear arms. So all the gun grabbers and constitution hating groups you need to either amend the constitution or shut it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/Crime is way down in the last several years in the USA, as gun ownership is up. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crimeSo every gun ban supporter is technically and literally enemy of the USA and a traitor. Just yelling the same thing louder doesn't make it a more compelling argument.
I dunno, the liberal (lol) sprinkling of emboldened text and assertion that all gun ban supporters are traitors seems quite compelling 
|
On December 31 2012 06:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 06:05 Zergofobic wrote:On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand. It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights. Not only does this post reek of xenophobic stupidity, it signposts a strong ignorance in regards to the genesis of the Magna Carta. "Forefathers fought and died" in this case looks a lot more like "a bunch of rich barons pissed at King John took advantage of French backing and forced him to surrender arbitrary rule". One can discuss the history of "rights" without resorting to fairytale and exaggeration.
Why don't you just admit that you are a slavery lover and want people to be abject slaves as they were for most of history?
Of course they fought, of course they died, of course tens of thousands of people were jailed without trial, of course people's property was taken away, of course they didn't have any rights. In fact for thousands of years until the Magna Carta it was a struggle and even today is a struggle(albeit not as terrible), a struggle against liberty hating people who want us to go back to the serfdom days.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I fear Zergofobic is not long for this world... TL world I mean
I dunno though, sometimes Farva does seem like a slavery lover. He never denied it at least.
|
On December 31 2012 06:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:I fear Zergofobic is not long for this world... TL world I mean I dunno though, sometimes Farva does seem like a slavery lover. He never denied it at least.
rofl
|
|
|
I'm just gonna be frank with my thoughts. Everyone in a neighborhood with a high crime rate (ive lived in a few) should have the right to a gun for protection. Gun nuts out in the south and rural areas who stockpile guns cause they fear a governmental collapse or some shit are ridiculous to my mind, because I'd never want a weapon lying around and shooting it all the time if I didn't actually NEED it to defend my life from a legitimate, probable threat. But you know what? Most of them are responsible adults so, it goes against my nature to tell them what they can't do.
I don't even think gun regulation would reduce rampage killings significantly. If they can't get one legally they'll get one illegally. If they can't get guns they'll use knives, bombs or poison. Treating the actual cause of shit like this involves reflecting on society and how it gives rise to tortured, deranged killers, how we should do more to watch out for such people and get them the serious help they need. But no one wants to talk about that, because that's a harder conversation than blaming guns and gun enthusiasts (even i find them easy to dislike for reasons stated above)
I often think, anything that dangerous should be banned... But you get to a point where technology and markets are too diffused, and you can't just get rid of dangerous things... Nukes, guns, drugs... Once you cant realistically ban them, then what? You have to try to deal with the factors that drive people to use them for evil purposes.
|
Some great points from yahoo comments, against all those who say inanimate objects ~guns are responsible and we need to ban guns:
A Marine General was interviewed on the radio regarding a new Boy Scout summer weekend program......
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So General, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL: We ' re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
|
On December 31 2012 06:43 Zergofobic wrote:
Some great points from yahoo comments, against all those who say inanimate objects ~guns are responsible and we need to ban guns:
A Marine General was interviewed on the radio regarding a new Boy Scout summer weekend program......
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So General, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL: We ' re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
There are a lot of conservatives who would like it if that interviewer wasn't equipped to be a prostitute by denying her education on how sex works.
Just saying. Also, this "conversation" is completely fake.
|
United States42539 Posts
On December 31 2012 06:05 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand. It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like nobody died for the Magna Carta, it was after Richard the Lionheart fucked up the country and robbed all the noblemen and when his brother inherited and was in a slightly weaker position they all ganged up on him and told him he wasn't allowed to fuck them like his brother did.
At no point were the rights of the common man involved, nor was there any kind of popular revolution. It was a document limiting the power of the king to fuck with his lords because his brother made them all buy back their own titles to raise money.
|
On December 31 2012 07:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 06:05 Zergofobic wrote:On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand. It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like nobody died for the Magna Carta, it was after Richard the Lionheart fucked up the country and robbed all the noblemen and when his brother inherited and was in a slightly weaker position they all ganged up on him and told him he wasn't allowed to fuck them like his brother did. At no point were the rights of the common man involved, nor was there any kind of popular revolution. It was a document limiting the power of the king to fuck with his lords because his brother made them all buy back their own titles to raise money.
Yeah that was a bit strange. I especially liked the "god given" part to talk about constructs that are purely human.
|
On December 31 2012 07:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 07:25 KwarK wrote:On December 31 2012 06:05 Zergofobic wrote:On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand. It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like nobody died for the Magna Carta, it was after Richard the Lionheart fucked up the country and robbed all the noblemen and when his brother inherited and was in a slightly weaker position they all ganged up on him and told him he wasn't allowed to fuck them like his brother did. At no point were the rights of the common man involved, nor was there any kind of popular revolution. It was a document limiting the power of the king to fuck with his lords because his brother made them all buy back their own titles to raise money. Yeah that was a bit strange. I especially liked the "god given" part to talk about constructs that are purely human.
To be fair, natural law generally has religious undertones, and the Magna Carta is one of the "great" natural law documents.
|
On December 31 2012 07:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 07:25 KwarK wrote:On December 31 2012 06:05 Zergofobic wrote:On December 31 2012 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Also the argument about the founding fathers and the exact phrasing of the constitution seems absurd to me as a non-American. If it's good for society then who cares if it's in the constitution, things aren't good because they're in the constitution, the intent is that the things in the constitution ought to be good. Argue the merits of gun ownership based upon the merits of gun ownership, not based upon their relation to an infallible foundation myth. And if you think it's so good that it ought to be a right and the constitution doesn't reflect that as well as you'd like then write it into the constitution. The constitution is there to protect the rights of the people FROM government. As such it protects FREE SPEECH, something you British don't understand, it protects your private property, again something you British don't understand, it protects your right to a fair trial by your peers, again something you British don't understand. It is a terrible, terrible shame that most you modern day British don't understand these basic god given, inalienable rights that your ancestors, your forefathers fought and died to be able to secure them, in what is know as the Magna Carta, just so their jellyfish like children of today shamelessly reject and neglect them in what is a culture of TV heads and gaming heads who don't understand or know their own rights, who don't care about their rights. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like nobody died for the Magna Carta, it was after Richard the Lionheart fucked up the country and robbed all the noblemen and when his brother inherited and was in a slightly weaker position they all ganged up on him and told him he wasn't allowed to fuck them like his brother did. At no point were the rights of the common man involved, nor was there any kind of popular revolution. It was a document limiting the power of the king to fuck with his lords because his brother made them all buy back their own titles to raise money. Yeah that was a bit strange. I especially liked the "god given" part to talk about constructs that are purely human.
god gave Zergofobic his gun so he can go on a sacred mission obv.
|
are all anti gun ownership people being called liberal?
personally I don't have much political interest and just feel much safer if all my neighbors don't own a gun and pretty sure there aren't any average burgers carrying firearms, that's why I am against it.
I know this topic is mainly concerned in US but just offering my opinion as a person coming from a background where there is NO gun culture, except air gun where we have fairly strict restrictions on modifications
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cloudfront2.bostinno.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/battleflagbanned1.jpeg)
