|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On October 10 2015 02:51 Parnage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2015 00:28 ComaDose wrote:On October 10 2015 00:24 Zdrastochye wrote:
I have no issue personally with people carrying guns around. I fully understand it drastically increases the risks of dying by being shot, or just being shot in general. It also increases the odds of tragic shootings. It's a net negative for the American society. I am still fine living here and I do believe that the country was built on having the right to carry a gun around for self-defense. the right to bear arms has nothing to do with self defense... it was instated so that citizens would be able to form militias to defend themselves from oppressive governments. Just cause it was built on something (ex. the backs of slaves) doesnt mean that its a right that needs to be continued. being afraid of change is the worst. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment I get you're all eager beaver over the idea of making fun of them darn gun and god fearing folks but at least try to realize it's a tad more complex then that.
well when you follow a law that was passed almost 300 years ago and should have no relevance to the modern day and age you know your country is in terrible hands
|
|
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On October 10 2015 03:01 ComaDose wrote:
oops
don't think I didn't see that :D!
but still just because a few judges are making a decision in the court doesn't mean that it is representative of what is right or wrong, I'm sure the people in power in America are super nationalists rather than logical human beings
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/496233-liquid-reincarnation
coolz
|
Judges making decisions is kind of the basis for the rule of law last I checked. Then again I value those 230 year old fundamental rights so maybe I'm just crazy.
Oh hey a new dota team. Nice.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On October 10 2015 03:14 Parnage wrote:
Judges making decisions is kind of the basis for the rule of law last I checked. Then again I value those 230 year old fundamental rights so maybe I'm just crazy.
Oh hey a new dota team. Nice.
Yes, of course it is the rule of law but what exactly makes the rule of law legitimate at any point in time? How many laws have you seen repealed for being contrived and silly because I have seen quite a fair few. If you value the rule of law why do you not value the rule of law to update and override something that was made 230 years ago? Why is it that something made a very long time ago can override something in modern times and have no chance of really ever being changed*, do you not think that is entirely silly?
I'm not really sure how anyone can value a rule of law but then allow things to bypass it.
*unless there is a mass uprising
I mean take for instance all those cases where there is a handgun ban but then the case is overruled because oh wait 2nd amendment! Clearly the ban was for a reason but that just eradicates the law (the ban) because your old constitution was made when people had bayonets and people threw a tantrum that the brits didn't want you to have weapons, it doesn't make much sense to me but I guess freedom™ prevails!
|
The answer is in my previous statement. I consider such things fundamental. Of course they can be updated and changed and are allowed for such and they have been. This idea that this is some outdated thing from hundreds of years ago and unchanged is hilariously inaccurate you merely need to look at any of the state or federal gun laws to see that.
The issue as always is far more complex then pundits on the news or comedians granted a "news show" lay out.
Of course if you don't think those rights are fundamental and listed to prevent the government from encroaching or denying citizenry these things then yeah I don't know what to tell you accept I disagree.
|
American gun politics is such an alien subject to me. From the outside it seems very crazy.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On October 10 2015 03:30 Parnage wrote:
The answer is in my previous statement. I consider such things fundamental. Of course they can be updated and changed and are allowed for such and they have been. This idea that this is some outdated thing from hundreds of years ago and unchanged is hilariously inaccurate you merely need to look at any of the state or federal gun laws to see that.
The issue as always is far more complex then pundits on the news or comedians granted a "news show" lay out.
Of course if you don't think those rights are fundamental and listed to prevent the government from encroaching or denying citizenry these things then yeah I don't know what to tell you accept I disagree.
The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.
It's from your own link. People make new laws/statutes for reasons that just get obliterated because of someone's desire for a fundamental right, it's so hilarious. People like drugs, drugs are mostly banned etc etc. It's because it was written on a piece of paper 230 years ago which makes it entirely hilarious that it still stands today as a get out of statute clause.
I fail to see how a right to carry a dangerous weapon is fundamental in the slightest as it has no positive impact other than various people's seeming quality of life. Fundamental rights are the declaration of human rights that are legitimately fundamental to people's well being.
I'm open to hear your point of view on how a government would encroach and deny citizenry if you suddenly did have a gun ban though because I do not really follow the logic behind that.
|
Fundamentalists always have crazy views.
|
On October 10 2015 03:30 Parnage wrote:
The answer is in my previous statement. I consider such things fundamental. Of course they can be updated and changed and are allowed for such and they have been. This idea that this is some outdated thing from hundreds of years ago and unchanged is hilariously inaccurate you merely need to look at any of the state or federal gun laws to see that.
The issue as always is far more complex then pundits on the news or comedians granted a "news show" lay out.
Of course if you don't think those rights are fundamental and listed to prevent the government from encroaching or denying citizenry these things then yeah I don't know what to tell you accept I disagree.
Right, because armed citizens are going to do a lot of good against drone strikes.
|
Completely diverting from the current topic, I've been listening to Misterwives lately and really like them
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 10 2015 03:50 jcarlsoniv wrote:Completely diverting from the current topic, I've been listening to Misterwives lately and really like them + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBrOwiHO-5w
Did someone just sausage another guy. Pretty decent tunes but that vid lol.
|
On October 10 2015 03:54 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2015 03:50 jcarlsoniv wrote:Completely diverting from the current topic, I've been listening to Misterwives lately and really like them + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBrOwiHO-5w Did someone just sausage another guy. Pretty decent tunes but that vid lol.
Oh idk, I didn't watch the video. Just found it to link the song lol
|
Wow, only took a page for me to be called a fundamentalist crazy. Nice. This is why I don't discuss things like this when it pops up because no matter what I say or how I approach the issue it'll turn into me called crazy or just a gun nut.(amusing considering I don't currently own any firearms)
There is a difference between regulation and outright banning. Guess which one you can do, and which one you can't do without violating the constitution which rather or not you agree is kind of a big deal for my nations basis of law.
Remember Gahlo, cops are corrupt, racist and evil, but only they should be trusted with guns.
|
On October 10 2015 03:59 Parnage wrote:
Wow, only took a page for me to be called a fundamentalist crazy. Nice. This is why I don't discuss things like this when it pops up because no matter what I say or how I approach the issue it'll turn into me called crazy or just a gun nut.(amusing considering I don't currently own any firearms)
There is a difference between regulation and outright banning. Guess which one you can do, and which one you can't do without violating the constitution which rather or not you agree is kind of a big deal for my nations basis of law.
Remember Gahlo, cops are corrupt, racist and evil, but only they should be trusted with guns.
You know, for somebody that is complaining about being stereotyped, you sure are quick to turn around and do the same thing to somebody that holds a differing opinion to you. You're also being overly emotional by lashing out at somebody that didn't label you.
|
talks about things being fundamental, gets called fundamentalist, gets mad.
yes most of the planet thinks your fundamentalist ideals are crazy. thats no detracting from your argument which was "its complicated"
Its just that no one can understand why one would think its a fundamental right to carry a loaded weapon around for "safety" Like anyone can be the target of armed thugs so lets pump our country full of more guns than there are people.
|
|
|
Anyone looking to rank up in Hearthstone should try out this Secret Paladin... heh heh hehhh.
|
On October 10 2015 04:15 mordek wrote:
Anyone looking to rank up in Hearthstone should try out this Secret Paladin... heh heh hehhh.
I'm trying combo druid out a bit. Feel dirty man, so so dirty. Think Neo loves riddler pally or is it Christmas tree pally. At least a new adventure should be announced soon, maybe it'll add a bit more to the game than TGT did. Riddler is only deck archetype out of TGT right? Oh there're dragon decks too I guess.
|
On October 10 2015 04:17 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2015 04:15 mordek wrote:
Anyone looking to rank up in Hearthstone should try out this Secret Paladin... heh heh hehhh. I'm trying combo druid out a bit. Feel dirty man, so so dirty. Think Neo loves riddler pally or is it Christmas tree pally. At least a new adventure should be announced soon, maybe it'll add a bit more to the game than TGT did. Riddler is only deck archetype out of TGT right? Oh there're dragon decks too I guess.
I crafted AoL and FoN numbers two for the combo deck and it felt meh. At least for the decks I was playing. I'm 66% or so with Le Riddler
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
