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.

(My Fox DC)   D.C.'s 32-year-old handgun ban has worked so well that the Supreme Court is considering allowing guns back into the District as a reward to the people   (myfoxdc.com) divider line 898
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

7367 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2008 at 10:06 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



898 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-03-18 10:52:00 AM
You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:

www.telegraph.co.uk

www.nydailynews.com
 
KIA
2008-03-18 10:52:07 AM
Why do you care whether I have a gun?
 
2008-03-18 10:52:11 AM
From what I understand, we have to wait about 40 years and then DC will get the Pre-cogs. I suspect that will solve a lot of problems.
 
2008-03-18 10:52:28 AM
dan_in_oakland 2008-03-18 10:33:15 AM
For the gun banners:

Query: does a prohibition on private gun ownership make the average Mexican any safer?

Follow up query: are guns particularly hard to obtain in Mexico?

Follow up to the follow up: How would you enforce a gun ban in the United States? Random searches on cars? Snitch warrants? No knock warrants? Does this seem similar to the war on drugs? Has the war on drugs made America any safer? Has it negatively affected civil liberties and the freedom to travel in the United States?

Follow up to the follow up to the follow up: Which seems more likely? Criminals with existing networks to overseas suppliers completely failing to circumvent a gun ban, or average citizens who currently own guns falling prey to more home invasion robberies? Also, which seems more likely: police officers using a gun ban to make the streets safer by concentrating on efficiently eliminating the smuggling networks that they have completely failed to eliminate or control up to this point, or police officers bursting in on an average home owner because he's a soft target?

Show your work. No points awarded for blaming Bush or criticizing America for not being enough like Europe.

This.
 
2008-03-18 10:52:45 AM
i28.tinypic.com

/If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
 
2008-03-18 10:52:51 AM
I love how gun nuts pull out small instances of gun grabbing as if that's going to happen nation wide.

Stop the farking madness. Noone who is at all serious or well grounded would suggest that the US government is somehow going to seize 300 million guns.

Also, if they did, there would be nothing you would do about it. You're not going to start a revolution. Gun idiots always talk big "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers". Yeah farking right. Shut your hole you idiot.

Owning a gun is a privilege, it's not a right. I think the privilege should be extended to all non violent felons, but it's still a privilege.

Gun nuts make me so goddamn angry sometimes. How can you live in such a perpetual state of paranoia? Oooh, I need to keep lots of guns to keep jack booted thugs from knocking down my door. Oooh, I need to make sure I keep the tyrannical US government in check by owning a couple of assault rifles.

At least Gun grabbers have their hearts in the right place even if their heads are screwed on backwards.

I hate gun discussions. There is just no place for the rational sensible person who sees guns for precisely what they are.
 
2008-03-18 10:52:54 AM
feickus: A handgun isn't the best home denfensive weapon and way. A dog and 12 gauge shotgun is.

Dogs can't shoot straight, dumbass! You have to give them pepper spray!
 
2008-03-18 10:53:03 AM
Sammy Jenkins: vernonFL: Sammy Jenkins: They are people in a MILITIA who have the right to keep and bear arms.

True, but back then the 'militia' was 'a bunch of farmers', who really only got together if there was a crisis. It was like being deputized in the Old West. I'm pretty sure nothing equivalent exists today.

It does. It's called the national guard. Perhaps you've heard of them.



No it doesn't: The National Guard is what would have been known as "Select Militia" back then, as repugnant to the founders as a standing army.

Even federal law to this very day says that there are two militias: The organized (ie., the NG), and the unorganized militia, which is composed of all able-bodied males age 18 to 45.
 
2008-03-18 10:53:10 AM
Sammy Jenkins: There was a great piece on NPR this morning highlighting the fact that the "right to bear arms" is clearly put in the context of maintaining a militia. Gun control is built into the bill of rights. It's a collective right (a militia is NOT an individual). And that's how courts have for the most part (correctly) interpreted the 2nd amendment. And that's how it will be interpreted again. It's amazing how many 2nd amendment issues can be solved WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ THE FARKING THING.

Wow, you fail on such an epic scale, it transcends a funny "inspirational poster format" photoshop.

A militia IS the people. Defined as any able-bodied person. Like the people in places like Florida who banded together to defend their communities in the post-Katrina disaster areas, cut off from any state or federal forces.

The amendment specifically states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So to you "the people" means "the government"? What sort of backwards intellectually dishonest garbage is that? The militia IS the people, and the right OF the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Note that it doesn't specifically grant a right, it affirms it. The right of the people to own and use guns was accepted and didn't NEED granting, it was already accepted as common sense, and this amendment served to not only define but to protect that right.

Gun control has led to not only out of control governments, but the strong preying on the weak. Guns are an equalizer that lets a family defend their home, a town to protect their community, and an individual to protect themselves against others that would do them harm. The founding fathers knew this, and worded it the way it is intentionally. In fact, the inclusion of the "militia" part was only accepted as a compromise between the anti- and federalists, to show that the right transcended individuals but also served a civic purpose in that if your town was under attack, the federal government wouldn't need to arm you.

YOU try "reading the farking thing" before spewing your intentionally dishonest garbage.

You're only one natural (or manmade) disaster away from being completely severed from any federal or state assistance. You may never need a gun, this is true. But it only takes ONE instance of needing one and not having one that ends your entire story.
 
2008-03-18 10:53:36 AM
Sammy Jenkins
There was a great piece on NPR this morning highlighting the fact that the "right to bear arms" is clearly put in the context of maintaining a militia. Gun control is built into the bill of rights. It's a collective right (a militia is NOT an individual). And that's how courts have for the most part (correctly) interpreted the 2nd amendment. And that's how it will be interpreted again. It's amazing how many 2nd amendment issues can be solved WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ THE FARKING THING.

heard it - liked it... thought one important point of the piece pointed out that the dictionary definition of "arms" (though usually firearms) includes all weapons, including tanks, missles and other fun stuff only the military is legally allowed to own and operate.

on a side note, this guy is not covered by the 2nd amendment either
www.clarionledger.com
 
2008-03-18 10:53:50 AM
Helios1182:

This might piss you off, but if you are 18+ years old you are a part of the militia.


Only if you're male, unless you're a female member of the national guard -- then you're also in the 'militia', according to the text of the U.S. code. A farker found that out last week.

So, women can't own guns because they're not apart of the militia.

Or we can drop this whole stupid argument, and see that the second amendment was a different animal before the 14th amendment, and the language makes things ambiguous.
 
2008-03-18 10:53:58 AM
Helios1182:This might piss you off, but if you are 18+ years old you are a part of the militia.

This
 
2008-03-18 10:54:30 AM
Sammy Jenkins: AuCinaoaMie: Sammy Jenkins: There was a great piece on NPR this morning highlighting the fact that the "right to bear arms" is clearly put in the context of maintaining a militia. Gun control is built into the bill of rights. It's a collective right (a militia is NOT an individual). And that's how courts have for the most part (correctly) interpreted the 2nd amendment. And that's how it will be interpreted again. It's amazing how many 2nd amendment issues can be solved WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ THE FARKING THING.

Militia is is made up of "the people" using privately owned firearms owned by "the people" be they in the militia or not.

You guys try to make it sound like the militia is a military branch, when it is citizens using their own firearms to defend their country, family, freedom, and way of life. What state has arms stored up for a militia? What state could afford to have arms stored? Would they be flintlocks or muskets?

I'm sorry, but you don't get to do this:



You can't leave out the context of who those people are. They are people in a MILITIA who have the right to keep and bear arms.


You are the one who is trying to red line stuff.. :)

Sorry but apparently you dont understand how it works. You see we have Military people, I was one of them. We serve under a different set of rules and we are given weapons. A militia is not the same as us military people. They are not provided a weapon to fight, the US military barely has enough weapons for its own people. That is part of the reason I was in a combat zone, being fired upon and could not fire back in 1991. I did not get an M16, not a CARR15, nor a GAU, not even a freakin pistol.

The militia is made of of people using their personally owned firearm. Expecting the government to provide one, in revolutionary times, or today, just wont work.

I am not of the ilk that thinks every person can have one, if you have committed a violent crime, or are mentally unstable and unable to understand right from wrong, then no you dont get one.

You are missing entirely "the people" part of it, and focusing on the "militia" like its a government run entity. Maybe you should find out what exactly a militia is, and who it is made up of.

Are you the type who feels that if we disarm our military the rest of the world will too? And would you meet the Russians at the beach with a cup of tea if they invaded? If you are one of those, then well your opinion means diddly shiat, because those people havent a clue how the world really works.
 
2008-03-18 10:54:38 AM
Very good post Zafler!
 
2008-03-18 10:54:39 AM
Sammy Jenkins: You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:

The mentally ill?
 
2008-03-18 10:55:31 AM
Teveler: dittybopper: toddhrog: How many times do we have to cover this: People don't kill people, Guns kill people.


Jeffrey Dahmer was a gun?

So you are saying that Dahmer would not have been a serial killer if there was a gun ban?? I really hope not.



Are you really that silly?

The statement was made that people don't kill, guns do. Dahmer (to the best of my knowledge) didn't use a firearm to murder his victims. Therefore, either the statement was wrong, or Dahmer would have to be a gun (which he obviously wasn't).
 
2008-03-18 10:55:31 AM
Bomb Head Mohammed: <b>GaryPDX:</b> <i>Hopefully, it will be the gun grabbing idiot sheeple.</i>

Please tell me again why it is OK to have handguns but not ok to have personal thermonuclear weapons. I have yet to hear one pro-gun genius be able to explain this without resorting to "distinctions without a difference" such as "one is arms and one is weapons."


*sigh* Okay, how about this. A citizen is not able to target or contain the damage created by a "personal thermonuclear weapon" and will therefore, by extension, infringe on the rights of others every time, always, period.
 
2008-03-18 10:55:34 AM
Roman Fyseek: Boxingoutsider: BULLSHIAT. There's 300 million guns in the US, nobody is confiscating them.

One could have easily said that very same thing moments before the DC gun ban.


Guns were not confiscated when the gun ban took effect. There was a grandfather clause. If you had a handgun before 1975, you can still have one. Just don't carry it out in public.
 
2008-03-18 10:55:40 AM
Whether legal or not, there is no way in hell I am going to give up owning a gun. I live in one of the most violent cities in the nation. Police response times regularly exceed 30 minutes. I have no choice but to defend myself and my family.
As the saying goes, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
2008-03-18 10:55:41 AM
Agent19: People should pay attention more and remember these documents tell the Government what they "CAN'T" do. Not what we CAN do. These are important things.

They CAN'T tell us what to say

They CAN'T disarm us

They CAN'T tell us what Religion's rules we have to abide by

They CAN'T poke around in our business for no reason

And so on.



THAT'S CRAZY TALK!!

/Ron Paul
 
2008-03-18 10:55:51 AM
thisisntnamtherearerules: The DC handgun ban has obviously not worked. I could see some validity in banning concealed carry in the areas immediately surrounding the white house, capitol, etc... if you look at a map of DC crimes this is not where crime is occuring anyway.

What do you believe that such a ban would accomplish?
 
2008-03-18 10:56:43 AM
I like it when pro-gun folks argue that people like the UVA killer are anomalies, and that a few nuts like those ruin it for the rest of us.

Under that logic, I think the right to an open alcohol container in the streets should be a right for which we should all concentrate our energies. I think we can all agree that unlike guns, the right to enjoy a cold beer in the streets should be innate and inalienable. I shouldn't have to look over my shoulder in fear of reprisal as I drink swill beer out of a red plastic cup during a softball game in the National Mall, a shrine to our liberties!
 
2008-03-18 10:56:50 AM
bottsicus: As a gun owner who is not a member of the NRA, and never will be, what turns me off about the NRA, and other gun-rights lobbying groups is their opposition even to what I consider to be "common-sense" gun legislation, like ballistic fingerprinting

Please explain the "common sense" behind ballistic fingerprinting.
 
2008-03-18 10:57:23 AM
Glasgowsfinest: Yeah, but I find it a bit weird. Even the idea of a "National Rifle Association" is a bit strange to me.


Like a Scottish Rifle Association? (Not quite the same thing, I know.)

 
2008-03-18 10:57:36 AM
Sum Dum Gai: Prior to the 14th amendment, the entirety of the Bill of Rights applied exclusively to the Federal government -- state governments were under no restriction at all. This is in line with the original notion of the Constitution -- as a document limiting the power of the federal government. It was not originally intended to likewise limit state government power; that was the purpose of state Constitutions.

Wrong. Very very wrong. See also: Tenth amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This makes it explicit. The constitution applies to everyone. Anything omitted is a right reserved for the state or people.
 
2008-03-18 10:58:04 AM
mandyer: Feindevil: mandyer: F*ck people who don't like guns. More importantly, f*ck people who don't want me to have guns. Goddamn bunch of pussies.

I really mean that.

that seems like such a reasonable argument to me

Do you really think I apply logic and reason in places like this? TF maybe, well, sometimes but not here. Goddamn peons.


Touche good sir touche.
/ reasoned arguements over Constituional Law are just soooo Passe'
// can i just gun down american idol and be done with the stupifying of America?
 
2008-03-18 10:58:30 AM
I find it interesting that after a gun rights supporter posts the picture of several dictators who instituted gun control as a means o suppressing his population, the gun control supporters pull out some pictures of their own.

I'd rather see one person go on a shooting spree, and kill 30 people, than to relinquish my rights guaranteed by our constitution, making it just that much easier for government suppression. How many people did Stalin have taken in the night, and shot in basements or out back in the forest, again? 20 million? Yeah, come back to me when gun control saves that many lives.
 
2008-03-18 10:58:45 AM
The gun nuts in this thread don't seem to realize that the vast majority of murders are crimes of passion. If you don't have access to a gun, and you get really angry about something, it's a lot less likely that you will kill whatever you're angry at.

The home invasion scenario that keeps getting brought up is really not that common. This is why countries with more gun restrictions have fewer murders.

www.guncontrol.ca

As for the whole overthrowing the government thing, do you really think that a well-armed populace stands a chance of overthrowing the US millitary? If Dubya wanted to turn the US into a faschist state, then sending a tank column and a few Apaches to any centres of armed resistance would quiet them down pretty quick.
 
2008-03-18 10:58:58 AM
Having read about 3/4 of the comments in this thread, I will say that I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that in every state that has made concealed carry permits easier to get the crime rate has plummeted. I am in Virginia and when this change was being debated, the bed-wetters at the Washington Post were predicting shootouts at every corner, killings in the coffee shop and children in busses having to dodge bullets every day. That happened, alright, but it was happening in DC. Here in Virginia crimes against persons (rapes, muggings, robberies) dropped dramatically. Most criminals are cowards and do not want to mess with someone who might be packing a pistol. To get the concealed weapon permit a person must have firearms training with an NRA-approved trainer, have a clean criminal record, etc.
Law abiding citizens who carry guns do not commit gun crimes. I think this even extends to "crimes of passion".
 
2008-03-18 10:59:07 AM
Sammy Jenkins: You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:

You mean besides the Supreme court in US V Miller? "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" (though Miller's basically a push)

Also, 2 nut-balls doesn't negate 2 MILLION defensive uses of firearms every year... nice try.
 
2008-03-18 10:59:53 AM
Sammy Jenkins: You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:didn't give a fark about any governing body of laws whatsoever, as plainly evidenced by his committing many, many, many crimes?

FTFCommon Sense.
 
2008-03-18 11:00:05 AM
Zafler: The term "well regulated" in early 1800s American English also does not mean what you think it does. It means "well-equipped."

Even discounting that, the first clause of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause, and cannot stand alone as a sentence. The second clause is an independent clause, and can stand alone as a sentence. Basic English grammar, both then and now, states that in a compound sentence consisting of a dependent and an independent clause, the dependent clause is only a modifier or explanatory clause, with the independent clause being the operative clause. The well-regulated militia part is thus merely saying why the Right exists, and is not a limitation on it.

Even the term "arms" had a specific meaning: weapons that could be carried and wielded by hand, and ammunition thereof (so much for the idea that we can ban ammo even if we can't Constitutionally ban guns), were the responsibility of the militia members. They had to obtain their own. The Government was to supply ordnance (cannon and other artillery, etc.). So much for the "but where do we draw the line? Can people keep and bear Abrams tanks? Missiles? Nukes?" type argument.

If the Second Amendment were written using modern grammar and idiom, but kept the same exact meaning it had when written, it would read:

"Because a well-armed and equipped populace is necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammunition needed for same, shall not be infringed."

I know it's late, but seems to me there are a lot of people that don't understand that the meaning of words shifts over time.


THIS!

Sammy Jenkins: You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:

You're an asshat. Do you really think those guys wouldn't have been able to get guns illegally?

"Geez. I want to go shoot a bunch of people, but I can't seem to find a legal means to procure a weapon. Oh well, I'll just plant some trees instead...and maybe donate blood. Oh look...a rainbow!"
 
2008-03-18 11:00:25 AM
bv2112: samimgreen: And if they were alone, wouldn't the 500 murders have been labeled suicides?

Your grasp of syntax amazes me, hehe.

/loves baseball


;-)

/Go Horner!
 
2008-03-18 11:01:03 AM
12 Inch Pianist: Whether legal or not, there is no way in hell I am going to give up owning a gun. I live in one of the most violent cities in the nation. Police response times regularly exceed 30 minutes. I have no choice but to defend myself and my family.
As the saying goes, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Sleep well.
 
2008-03-18 11:01:22 AM
absoluteparanoia: Wrong. Very very wrong. See also: Tenth amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This makes it explicit. The constitution applies to everyone. Anything omitted is a right reserved for the state or people.


Not only that, take a look at the use of "States respectively, or to the people"

This is an example, in the exact same document (Bill of Rights) in which the states are listed as separate entities from the people. I believe that may be relevant to the discussion when discussing what exactly is inferred by 'the people' in 2nd Amendment discussions.
 
2008-03-18 11:01:42 AM
DarnoKonrad: Helios1182:

This might piss you off, but if you are 18+ years old you are a part of the militia.

Only if you're male, unless you're a female member of the national guard -- then you're also in the 'militia', according to the text of the U.S. code. A farker found that out last week.

So, women can't own guns because they're not apart of the militia.


Err, show me where the Second Amendment FORBIDS those other than the militia from owning arms.

Just because A protects the rights of B, it doesn't mean it forbids the same rights to C.

At any rate, you couldn't selectively pass a law that disarms women anyway, as it wouldn't pass muster under the a couple of different legal theories.


Or we can drop this whole stupid argument, and see that the second amendment was a different animal before the 14th amendment, and the language makes things ambiguous.


It's actually pretty plain:

In order to guarantee that the militia (which, when properly formed, consist of the people) can always be an effective force, you can't forbid the ownership or use of arms to individuals.
 
2008-03-18 11:02:01 AM
Sammy Jenkins: There was a great piece on NPR this morning highlighting the fact that the "right to bear arms" is clearly put in the context of maintaining a militia. Gun control is built into the bill of rights. It's a collective right (a militia is NOT an individual). And that's how courts have for the most part (correctly) interpreted the 2nd amendment. And that's how it will be interpreted again. It's amazing how many 2nd amendment issues can be solved WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ THE FARKING THING.

Yes, we should live in a land where only the military and police have guns. Because the military and the police loooove liberals, and would never round them up and summarily execute them.

I find it interesting that the people who most hate the 2nd Amendment are the very ones who would need its protections in case of a fascist takeover of government.
 
2008-03-18 11:02:05 AM
absoluteparanoia: 12 Inch Pianist: Whether legal or not, there is no way in hell I am going to give up owning a gun. I live in one of the most violent cities in the nation. Police response times regularly exceed 30 minutes. I have no choice but to defend myself and my family.
As the saying goes, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Sleep well.


Statistically speaking, my car is more dangerous than my pistol.
 
2008-03-18 11:02:08 AM
Cambo_: The gun nuts in this thread don't seem to realize that the vast majority of murders are crimes of passion. If you don't have access to a gun, and you get really angry about something, it's a lot less likely that you will kill whatever you're angry at.

Guns may make it easier to commit a lot of murders (which is extremely rare, yet widely publicized), but you sure as hell don't need a gun to kill one person who isn't expecting it. The US has a higher knife crime rate than other countries with legal gun ownership have gun crime rates... we have a crime problem, not a gun problem.
 
2008-03-18 11:02:32 AM
toddhrog: How many times do we have to cover this: People don't kill people, Guns kill people.

Sorry but I dont need a gun to kill you, or anyone else for that matter. You dont need a gun either, all you need is some Jim Beam and a Buick.
 
2008-03-18 11:03:02 AM
Just a few little points.

1. The people have a right to "keep and bear" arms as part of a militia - designed to protect the state. "Keep and bear" does not include own. (I believe the assumption was that the malitia would own the arms and allow people to keep them in their homes.)

2. The Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments) does not apply directly to the citizens of States. It is applied to those people, piece-meal, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The only people to whom the Bill of Rights directly applies are the residents of D.C.

Hope that helps!

(Just a side note: If violence would be rampant without gun ownership, why are countries where citizens may not have guns so much less violent than ours??)
 
2008-03-18 11:03:55 AM
You folks who talk about "Mowing people down" are why i will keep my gun.

People who wish to do me harm will still have the guns which is why i will keep my gun.

People who are all about gun control only do so because it is easier to control an unarmed populace.

The violent criminal will also find it easier to control the unarmed populace.

The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will have zero effect on me. I am not turning in my gun for any reason whatsoever.
 
2008-03-18 11:03:57 AM
This: Zafler: bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammunition needed for same

I'm interested to see where you came up with that part. They said "arms". Not "long-arms" or "small-arms" or any other specifications. Last time I checked, heavy artillery is still "arms".


As I recall from when I first researched that after COMALITE J Boobiesed it, arms in general from the time period are firearms that are carried. The artillery pieces are "ordnance", a seperate category from "arms".

/Can never remember where the commas and periods go when doing quotes.
 
2008-03-18 11:03:58 AM
OSULugan: I'd rather see one person go on a shooting spree, and kill 30 people, than to relinquish my rights guaranteed by our constitution, making it just that much easier for government suppression. How many people did Stalin have taken in the night, and shot in basements or out back in the forest, again? 20 million? Yeah, come back to me when gun control saves that many lives.

As someone who could be shot, as opposed to someone who could shoot someone, I hope you can empathize as to why I am all about legislation that makes it harder for the average person to get a firearm.

I also don't realistically expect the American government to come after me with guns, which adds to my opinion. That idea of the government rebelling against its people also begs the question, do you really think you can take on the U.S. military with guns?

But above all, fark Michigan. Go Bucks!
 
2008-03-18 11:04:02 AM
Sammy Jenkins: You know who else interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean the right of individuals to own guns:

Perhaps you should look into why those kids did what they did rather than how they did it. You had to have grown up in a white bread world, or cowering in your mammas lap from the bad people outside.
 
2008-03-18 11:04:38 AM
mrtoadswildride: I'm just going to mosey on over to Murder rates, and DC is #13 (new window)

/wait DC you shouldn't be on this list we took away your guns...you should be utopia of friendliness


I'm no fan of the DC gun laws, but I remember DC being #1 on that list before the ban. Way too many other factors at play here to draw simple conclusions.
 
2008-03-18 11:04:39 AM
absoluteparanoia: Thats fine. Statistically speaking your more likely to shoot yourself, your children, or your wife than shoot a criminal.

Sleep well.


I do, actually, sleep pretty well. Funny that.
 
2008-03-18 11:04:56 AM
This: Obviously, automatic weapons are out. That just makes sense - in an urban environment, a weapon like that is collateral damage waiting to happen.

Need to ban cars for the same reason. People obviously can't be responsible for their own actions.
 
2008-03-18 11:05:37 AM
If I went outside right now bearing arms, I would be promptly arrested. I feel infringed.

/BTW, well regulated does NOT mean well organized
//If the 2nd Amendment scares the government, then it's working
 
2008-03-18 11:05:46 AM
atate_esq: Sammy Jenkins: You can't leave out the context of who those people are. They are people in a MILITIA who have the right to keep and bear arms.

Wrong. They are not people in a militia. Otherwise, THE PEOPLE wouldn't be there. It would read like this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Because a militia was always a loss group which constantly changed based on the purpose for its existence, the right to bear arms was given to THE PEOPLE so that a militia could always be formed from the citizens.


He isnt going to get it, he cant understand basic concepts like "who makes up a militia and what a militia actually is"
 
Displayed 50 of 898 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report