Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Tennessean)   Tennessee State Senate gets down to its three most important agendas: Beastiality, guns and Justin Timberlake   (tennessean.com) divider line 108
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

7192 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2007 at 4:41 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-21 05:10:10 PM  
I'd crack some joke about Tennessee and Justin Timberlake but then I just realised that I live in Fresno, CA and we're responsible for Kevin (Cletus) Federline so i'll politely refrain from commenting.
 
2007-03-21 05:10:26 PM  
As an aside, if the federal government issued every man, woman and child a one-shot target pistol and a bullet and outlawed every other kind of firearm, would that be ok?
 
2007-03-21 05:10:58 PM  
LocalCynic: Mine are also tingling that someone "guns are holy objects" person will advance a totally specious distinction between "munitions" and "arms."

Care to point out where our founding fathers made that distinction when including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights?
 
2007-03-21 05:12:54 PM  
Sounds about right.
 
2007-03-21 05:13:05 PM  
mmm... pancake
Oh, so you like my target pistol solution.
 
2007-03-21 05:14:14 PM  
mmm... pancake: Do you, or do you not, support the Government's attempt to, during an emergency, infringe upon a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Could you point to anywhere in the Constitution where it says that people have a right to manufacture, purchase, or sell firearms?

I don't see how this is any different than no-knock searches when there's a reasonable belief that someone is going to destroy evidence. On one hand that's a violation of due process because the property owner doesn't have notice of the search, on the other hand when weighing the competing interests, the preservation of evidence of a crime is more important.

There are situations where the government should have the authority to restrict the sales of firearms. To simply draw a line in the sand and say "no, government may NEVER regulate guns, ever" is an extremist reading of the Constitution and an attempt to make the gun industry the only industry in the world that is above the law.
 
2007-03-21 05:15:43 PM  
wh0mprat: Oh, so you like my target pistol solution.

Not even close.

As an aside, if the federal government issued every man, woman and child a one-shot target pistol and a bullet and outlawed every other kind of firearm, would that be ok?

That depends. Does the 2nd Amendment say that "some arms" shall not be infringed?
 
2007-03-21 05:15:55 PM  
mmm... pancake: He didn't make a point. He asked a questions that has no bearing on the conversation at all.

I've pointed this out before and I guess I'll do it again but 99.96% of ALL guns (300,000,000) in this country have never been used in a felony. That's some anarchy going on there.

Finally, what part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? That means NO regulation.


He made his point BY asking the question. It's a common and accepted form of debate. If you didn't understand the point that's not his problem.

The % of guns that have been used for any purpose has nothing to do with my anarchy argument. I was quite plainly speaking to the fact that we have a government, and government regulation, for a reason. To do away with it would be, by definition, anarchy.

Your last point mentions a passage in the Bill of Rights that has the words "well regulated" right in the same sentence you quoted to support your stance of "NO regulation".
 
2007-03-21 05:16:02 PM  
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it resulted in more crime and gross violations of people's liberties with none of the intended effect.

Prohibition isn't working for drugs, it is resulting in more crime and gross violations of people's liberties with none of the intended effect.

Prohibition won't work for guns, it will result in more crime and gross violations of people's liberties with none of the intended effect.
 
2007-03-21 05:16:43 PM  
Wait... so sheep farking... was it legal or just a misdemeanor before this?
 
2007-03-21 05:16:50 PM  
mmm... pancake: Care to point out where our founding fathers made that distinction when including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

I'm sure someone will when I point out that missiles and bombs are military arms.
 
2007-03-21 05:16:53 PM  
I wonder how they define sex with an animal. Are breeders allowed to have sex with animals?
 
2007-03-21 05:18:16 PM  
LocalCynic: There are situations where the government should have the authority to restrict the sales of firearms. To simply draw a line in the sand and say "no, government may NEVER regulate guns, ever" is an extremist reading of the Constitution and an attempt to make the gun industry the only industry in the world that is above the law.

The 2nd amendment IS the law and IS absolute much the same way that the 1st is.
 
2007-03-21 05:18:44 PM  
Care to point out where our founding fathers made that distinction when including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

Well, if you're going to be all "strict constructionist" about it you'll have to sign up for the well regulated militia to keep and bear your arms.
 
2007-03-21 05:19:31 PM  
For the guys bashing on the guns... You need to read a couple of things.

1) Battle of Athens, Tenn. No, it wasn't in the Civil War - it was after WW2. Open revolt against the local government.
click

2) This news article... almost as if it were from the future.

BOSTON - National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored,
armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat. Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

April 20, 1775
 
2007-03-21 05:20:47 PM  
GnomePaladin: Your last point mentions a passage in the Bill of Rights that has the words "well regulated" right in the same sentence you quoted to support your stance of "NO regulation".

For fark's sake, go look up the definition of well regulated militia in the context of the 2nd amendment. The reason we even HAVE a second amendment is to protect our rights from folks like you and LocalCynic who think they can do away with them at will when it suits your needs.
 
2007-03-21 05:21:27 PM  
mmm... pancake

I don't see the problem. If everyone is guaranteed access to a firearm, what objection could you possibly have? Your right to bear arms has not been infringed.
 
2007-03-21 05:21:34 PM  
mrjared: Well, if you're going to be all "strict constructionist" about it you'll have to sign up for the well regulated militia to keep and bear your arms.

I'm done. I can't deal with this stupidity any more. Off to the gym for me.
 
2007-03-21 05:21:50 PM  
mmm... pancake: That means NO regulation.

So it should be legal to bring guns into airplanes? Into the White House?

Does this mean that it's unconstitutional to prohibit the sale, importation, or possession of a firearm designed by, say, a foreign enemy of the United States? Let's say that you purchase a gun from a state company of a state that the US has embargoed. Is that embargo illegal insofar as it deals with firearms?

Could you point where in the second amendment it says that "the right to manufacture arms" shall not be infringed?
 
2007-03-21 05:22:34 PM  
dick in a fox?
 
2007-03-21 05:24:58 PM  
mmm... pancake: The 2nd amendment IS the law and IS absolute much the same way that the 1st is.

Try shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or holding a sign outside the White House saying that you intend do something malicious to the President. Most likely you'll find that your "speech" is punished.

Try praying loudly in Arabic in an airport, or bringing a religious dagger (carried by Sikhs) through the DHS screeners.

And of course, lord forbid we try and levy any taxes on gun makers or gun sales, or on materials used in the production of guns. Illegal, because taxes make it harder to obtain guns.
 
2007-03-21 05:25:13 PM  
mmm... pancake The first holophobe speaks.

You meant "hoplophobe," I assume, but I like your neologism better. Holophobe=fear of everything.
 
2007-03-21 05:26:26 PM  
Well, You can't have one without the other.
 
2007-03-21 05:26:54 PM  
ponytd

So JT's next song will be called Dick in an Ox?

/FTW!
 
2007-03-21 05:33:55 PM  
Well, good thing I wasn't in Tennessee last week. 'Cause that girl I slept with sure was an animal under the covers.
 
2007-03-21 05:34:37 PM  
wh0mprat

I don't see the problem. If everyone is guaranteed access to a firearm, what objection could you possibly have? Your right to bear arms has not been infringed.

And the entire intent of the amendment in question has been utterly subverted. Playing semantic games with the Constitution is all the rage ("There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away."), but it's still lame.
 
2007-03-21 05:36:23 PM  
I'm with you guys, no regulations on arms. NONE I say. I have a 2nd amendment right to my nuclear arms.
 
2007-03-21 05:37:47 PM  
mrjared

Well, if you're going to be all "strict constructionist" about it you'll have to sign up for the well regulated militia to keep and bear your arms.

OED, 18th century, example usage of "well-regulated": "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations..."

Does that appear to mean "under government control?"

How exactly would a government paramilitary force protect us from a tyrannical government? Would you trust an alcoholic to guard your beer?
 
2007-03-21 05:42:22 PM  
Other examples of "well-regulated" from successive editions of the OED, over the next fifty years after the penning of the Bill of Rights:

It appeared to her well-regulated mind like a clandestine proceeding.

The equation of time is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.

A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.


None of these suggest "well-regulated" means "under government control."

Taken together with the writings of the men who were responsible for the Constitution, all of which are clear on the idea that the citizenry should be armed and able to resist tyranny from any quarter, the idea that "well-regulated" in the context of Amendment II means "under government control" is silly.

An oppressive government will not protect us from itself. It's rather inherent in the concepts involved.
 
2007-03-21 05:42:52 PM  
soooo... JT's bringing sexy baa-aaack...

// hey there mr. fancy pants, get your metro-sexual ass off my ewe...
 
2007-03-21 05:49:33 PM  
mmm... pancake

The 2nd amendment IS the law and IS absolute much the same way that the 1st is.

Neither are, nor were they intended to be. The idea behind the 2nd is that every citizen would be ready to fight for their country in case of invasion or oppression, showing up with their own individual weapons, the quintessential citizen-soldier who would go back to his bakery or office or farm when the crisis was ended. We would need no standing army, as we weren't going to be gallivanting about the world playing cop.

It was a great idea. But the idea that you can have a nuke or stealth bomber is so far out of context that it's just absurd.
 
2007-03-21 05:50:22 PM  
Attack on the second amendment RIGHT THERE.
 
2007-03-21 05:51:35 PM  
Eochada

Our esteemed colleague mmmm...pancake pointed out:

Care to point out where our founding fathers made that distinction when including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

So. The Second Amendment does not distinguish between types of arms. So a target pistol meets its requirements just as effectively as an assault rifle. It says nothing about what kind of arms you're allowed to bear, simply that you are.

It's a ridiculous proposition, but it's meant as a boundary case. What specificaly is wrong with the target pistol solution?
 
2007-03-21 05:51:49 PM  
roccovw4

I think its allready illegal but a misdemenor
 
2007-03-21 05:51:58 PM  
I would like an answer to a question: If the right to have and bear arms is absolute in all forms, how is it justifiable to invade a foreign country to disarm them? Because there does seem to be a huge overlap between 'hawks and gun nuts.

For my money, there is plenty of historical evidence demonstrating that the old chestnut about an armed society being a polite one is egregiously false, and the present plague of gun violence in the US just confirms this. That being said, the US Constitution is the law of the land, and so, well, the right to have and bear arms should not be infringed.

The only thing that really irks me is the depressingly large percentage of the population that apparently thinks that the second amendment is more important than the others, and especially more important than the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th...

/Left socialist, yo.
 
2007-03-21 05:52:27 PM  
The Creature comforts legislation. Yep, apparently you can't beat an animal, but romancing is currently okay (by omission of definition)

However, it is illegal to abuse your cock, handle your snake in a dangerous manner, or steal someone else's fish.

A relief, I thought I was going to have to burn up all my monkey porn.
img.photobucket.com
 
2007-03-21 05:54:54 PM  
"Prohibition won't work for guns, it will result in more crime and gross violations of people's liberties with none of the intended effect."

you mean to say that it isn't working. See: Washington DC, and the court that just pimpslapped their asinine ban.

"But the idea that you can have a nuke or stealth bomber is so far out of context that it's just absurd." Actually the only people going that far are the asshats at the ACLU.
 
2007-03-21 05:55:16 PM  
wh0mprat

The Second Amendment does not distinguish between types of arms. So a target pistol meets its requirements just as effectively as an assault rifle. It says nothing about what kind of arms you're allowed to bear, simply that you are.

Right. If you dismiss the context, it can mean a lot of things. It can mean ursine arms as well, if you insist on ignoring everything else, even though that's obviously not what was meant if you actually read the words of the men responsible for it.

It's a ridiculous proposition, but it's meant as a boundary case. What specificaly is wrong with the target pistol solution?

By the strict letter of only the Bill of Rights, nothing at all. By the intent, as stated by the authors, everything.
 
2007-03-21 05:57:58 PM  
They're making more headway than the entire Republican Congress in the past six years.

i12.tinypic.com
"teh gheys!?"
 
2007-03-21 06:02:17 PM  
Holophobe?

content.answers.com

Rimmer: Look, we all have something to bring to this discussion. But I think from now on the thing you should bring is silence.
 
2007-03-21 06:02:18 PM  
Eochada
By the strict letter of only the Bill of Rights, nothing at all. By the intent, as stated by the authors, everything.


It's interesting. It all comes down to intent, and that's impossible to determine. We're not time-travelling mindreaders.

Are the mentally challenged allowed to own guns? Where does it say in the Constitution that ex-cons are NOT allowed to own guns? Does requiring a permit 'abridge' your rights?

If one gun ownership law is constitutional, then they all are.
 
2007-03-21 06:07:19 PM  
wh0mprat

It all comes down to intent, and that's impossible to determine. We're not time-travelling mindreaders.

We can both read, though. Ignoring what the men said doesn't mean we "don't know" what they purported to believe.

I don't believe it's impossible at all to see their intent; it's apparently impossible for everyone to agree as to whether or not it was a good idea.

Are the mentally challenged allowed to own guns? Where does it say in the Constitution that ex-cons are NOT allowed to own guns? Does requiring a permit 'abridge' your rights?

I hope not, but I'd probably be surprised; it doesn't; I tend to believe so.

If one gun ownership law is constitutional, then they all are.

I don't think it's an all or nothing thing; there's nothing in the available material to suggest that was ever the intent.

/obviously big on spirit vs. letter
 
2007-03-21 06:12:33 PM  
Eochada
The problem, as I see it, is that when people start getting very extreme in their views and perverting the spirit to match what they want, then all one can fall back on is the letter of the law.

That is to say, the spirit is good as far as it goes, but when it comes right down to it, it's the letter that counts.
 
2007-03-21 06:21:38 PM  
Can I be on the "Tennessee" tag committee too?
/used to think Nashville was a good place to live
//now I'm not so sure
 
2007-03-21 06:22:56 PM  
wh0mprat

The problem, as I see it, is that when people start getting very extreme in their views and perverting the spirit to match what they want, then all one can fall back on is the letter of the law.

I still disagree that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, its purpose and that of the men who wrote it, is so arcane:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - James Madison's version of Amendment II

"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls." - George Mason. Seems like he's suggesting your average joe be armed like a regular soldier, plus some (i.e., the means to produce your own ammo).

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals." - suggested amended Amendment II (seems to clarify some of the issues with the armed short bus and felons).

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights." - Alexander Hamilton, being pretty clear on the concept that the militia (you and I and farmer Bob and Jim the lawyer) should be armed as soldiers, because some day our government might try to form it's own army.

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee

Most of these seem pretty clear to me.

That is to say, the spirit is good as far as it goes, but when it comes right down to it, it's the letter that counts.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, obviously scrutinizing your position through his colonial sorcery. :)
 
2007-03-21 06:25:31 PM  
...because some day our government might try to form it's own army.

Not that they ever would. The government is surely the faithful guardian of the Republic.
 
2007-03-21 06:26:04 PM  
Didn't Warren Zevon already address this in a song?
 
2007-03-21 06:39:05 PM  
shipofthesun: Didn't Warren Zevon already address this in a song?

"Puppies, Guns, and Wussies"?
 
2007-03-21 07:45:37 PM  
Taken together with the writings of the men who were responsible for the Constitution, all of which are clear on the idea that the citizenry should be armed and able to resist tyranny from any quarter, the idea that "well-regulated" in the context of Amendment II means "under government control" is silly.

In that case, we should simply "re-interpret" the meaning of the Second Amendment. When gun grabbers can't win on factual grounds, they'll argue that we should just pretend that the words as written should henceforth be considered to mean something else.
(I actually saw an essay advocating "reinterpreting" the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.)
 
2007-03-21 08:09:28 PM  
I think this could make a good film...

Make sure at the end though you put a bullet through the head of the mangy mutt.... then bury Timberlakes body and find the dog a good home through adoption.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report