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.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 502
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



502 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 08:59:52 AM  

IlGreven: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

Maybe you mean to say that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes (as in, how many seats a state got in the House and how many EVs a state got). Slaves didn't have the right to vote, and any white man with property that did still only got one vote. 

This is actually a common misconception...even TDS got it wrong, for humor ("I cast my 5 slaves' 3 votes for James K. Polk"). If people who made the misconception were correct, then women and children would have been voting as well (as they are counted as "free persons" in that clause of the Constitution, despite not having the right to vote.)


Ding! Ding! You win the prize!

I always like to state one counter-argument totally wrong in these idiot threads, just to see if people actually have the first idea of what they're talking about. :p

My degree is history, and I did my honors thesis on the Constitution and its Amendments. I know it's for apportionment only. It's also why Gerrymandering was basically a northern-only peculiarity prior to the Civil War. Slaves not moving that much and all...

I started to say 'they thought that Senators should be elected by state legislatures', but decided the above would be more fun. Glad to see someone is awake and thinking this morning :)
 
2012-12-03 09:01:22 AM  
I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Scalia. Rose asked him when did the politicization and polarization regarding the SCOTUS begin and when will it end?

Scalia answered it started with the Bork nomination. And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.

There is no hope left. The SCOTUS is the only political contest that cannot be "primaried" if an official makes a bad decision.
 
2012-12-03 09:02:24 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.


Ah Scalia. The strict constitutionalist who happens to only be strict when it is a view he agrees with
 
2012-12-03 09:02:47 AM  
What non-existent threat is American Thinker wetting its pants over this time?
 
2012-12-03 09:02:51 AM  

Cythraul: I'm in a militia. We meet every week to chat about American Idol and the latest Twilight gossip.


Sounds pretty well regulated.
 
2012-12-03 09:03:04 AM  

whistleridge:
I always like to state one counter-argument totally wrong in these idiot threads, just to see if people actually have the first idea of what they're talking about. :p

My degree is history, and I did my honors thesis on the Constitution and its Amendments.


Well aren't you just the most precious little man.
 
2012-12-03 09:03:07 AM  
Maybe the most reasonable article to ever come out of American Thinker. I don't necessarily agree with it, nor do I think trashy reality shows are saving our freedoms, but I never once looked off in the corner and said "What the fark am I reading?"
 
2012-12-03 09:04:03 AM  

dittybopper: whistleridge: What the gun nuts don't seem to understand is, it's not your guns that I'm worried about, asshole. It's you.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".


So...you agree with my point then? Got it.
 
2012-12-03 09:04:26 AM  

whatsupchuck: I might have believed this, prior to the Stinker trying to tell me. Now I wouldn't be so sure.


THIS.
 
2012-12-03 09:04:30 AM  
What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because they tried it, got smacked down, realized that it wasn't a winner, and stopped pushing it.

I mean, it was a stupid issue to be pushing in the first place, but in all fairness that describes every hot-button issue ever and it has nothing to do with why they stopped.

If the crazy right-wingers were less outright stupid, they'd maybe take a lesson from this and apply it to, say, the abortion issue. When something's been explicitly resolved by the courts and voters multiple time, it's maybe time to shelve it for a while.
 
2012-12-03 09:07:56 AM  
On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race. On the other hand, American Potato doesn't recognise the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment (the one that says that brown and gay people are human beings), so I just want to say that their hypocritical cherry-picking asses can bite me.

The way these farknuggets wildly masturbate to some parts of the Constitution and completely ignore the rest annoys me even more than the birther bullshiat. The Constitution is not the bloody Bible, it just doesn't work that way.
 
2012-12-03 09:09:24 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Scalia. Rose asked him when did the politicization and polarization regarding the SCOTUS begin and when will it end?

Scalia answered it started with the Bork nomination. And he said it won't end until his side--the side that says the Constitution should not be modified by SCOTUS opinion--wins.

There is no hope left. The SCOTUS is the only political contest that cannot be "primaried" if an official makes a bad decision.


Which is why we need SCOTUS term limits, IMHO. 18 year terms, a new justice every two years. Every President gets to put 2 on the court automatically, and there's no fears of having the court locked up for a generation for one side or the other.

It wouldn't greatly alter the composition of the court in a historical sense. The average age of newly appointed justices is about 53, which would get most justices out around retirement age. And it would get around the roadblocking that has begun to pop up since the 70's. Prior to that, the average term for a justice was something like 15 years; since 1970 the average length of service has jumped up big time to something like 25-26 years.
 
2012-12-03 09:10:22 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

This is America. We invent our own threats. Several at a time.



If only there was an excellent 3 part BBC documentary on exactly this, free on Youtube.

blackandbrownnews.com.
 
2012-12-03 09:10:59 AM  
craigrwhitney.com

/a little slow in places, but makes some interesting points
 
2012-12-03 09:11:07 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: On the one hand, I'm completely pro-Second Amendment but not a gun owner, and as such I don't really have a horse in this race.


"This race" being the inevitable pro-gun vs anti-gun fight in this thread. I didn't read TFA, obviously. :P
 
2012-12-03 09:14:58 AM  
FTA: The sole purpose of this trust would be to finance Second Amendment attorneys to prosecute litigation designed to result in judicial decisions affirming the Constitutional right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

I envisioned raising public, legislative, and judicial knowledge and awareness of the origin of, and the meaning of, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I was looking forward to hiring Second Amendment scholars to identify what we believed to be Second Amendment violations, and to persuading people to whom injustice had been done to become the plaintiffs in our crusade to advance liberty in America by dusting off and exalting the Second Amendment.


Had this been the first amendment you'd be the ACLU or calling yourself a ambulance chaser.
 
2012-12-03 09:15:38 AM  
That doesn't matter!
Only what the bible says matters, and Moses wasn't packing heat.
 
2012-12-03 09:15:43 AM  
"firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.
 
2012-12-03 09:17:32 AM  
There's been gun control since this country was founded. Entire towns would ban guns, and you'd have to give your gun to the Sheriff when you came to the town.

I'm in favor of gun ownership, but the 2nd Amendment was not intended the way that people now claim it's intended.
 
2012-12-03 09:17:58 AM  
a.abcnews.com

At least the framers of the Constitution understand me.
 
2012-12-03 09:19:22 AM  

Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.



It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?
 
2012-12-03 09:19:48 AM  
Anyone Else read this as "Farmers of the Constitution"?
 
2012-12-03 09:20:10 AM  

roadkillontheweb: That doesn't matter!
Only what the bible says matters, and Moses wasn't packing heat.


writemiddleeast.files.wordpress.com
Moses is gonna wack you upside the head if you try to take his staff away.
 
2012-12-03 09:21:16 AM  

GAT_00: *shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.


No you aren't you disingenuous tart. You're supposed to recognize that the "no infrigement" clause refers NOT to the militia, but to "the people".

There is a reason for that. If they had meant the right to be only for the militia, they would have said so.
This is elementary school reading and comprehension you are failing at.
 
2012-12-03 09:22:49 AM  

Cythraul: If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?


Not when you say, "the right of **the people**...will not be infringed."
 
2012-12-03 09:23:00 AM  
Actually, no it wasn't in their original plans. It was added as an amendment in order to get enough States to ratify the constitution.
 
2012-12-03 09:24:01 AM  
Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-03 09:24:21 AM  

Hobodeluxe: and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.


"The People" ≠ "A Militia" Even tho a militia is comprised of the people.
 
2012-12-03 09:24:26 AM  

the_foo: [craigrwhitney.com image 200x302]

/a little slow in places, but makes some interesting points


Most of us libby lib liberals live just fine with guns.

It's the buck-toothed inbred lunatics who are constantly screaming that somebody's coming to take them or that everybody who thinks there should be any measure at all to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people that we have a problem with.
 
2012-12-03 09:25:06 AM  

vpb: It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.


No, it isn't.
 
2012-12-03 09:25:36 AM  
If conservatives think guns are far and away the most important thing, then why don't they do more to reduce crime? Why do conservatives instead want to cut social spending and all the other things that help reduce the crime rate? If the crime rate was at all time lows, then there wouldn't be any substance to the argument to ban guns.
 
2012-12-03 09:26:19 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims


From that article:

Rather than allowing the building of more mega-mosques in the United States, we should halt existing projects and seriously consider shutting down existing mosques to prevent the proliferation of an ideology that has publicly pledged to destroy America.

Because freedom.
 
2012-12-03 09:27:59 AM  
No one is trying to take your guns. Seriously. Chill.
 
2012-12-03 09:28:08 AM  

s2s2s2: vpb: It explains exactly what they were trying to accomplish, so yes, it's a limitation.

No, it isn't.


Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?
 
2012-12-03 09:28:48 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting


Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!
 
2012-12-03 09:29:12 AM  
When it comes to the Constitution, I think we need to be very strict in our interpretation. So I think the second amendmant does allow for personal ownership of guns. But because I am so strict in my interpretation, I think it should be restricted only the guns available at the time the Constitution was written. In other words, you can own all the flint-lock rifles you want. Hell, you can have cannons as well. Basically, all blackpowder weapons. Anything else wasn't mention in the constitutions, so can be fully regulated. Knock yourself out with your smooth bore muskets.
 
2012-12-03 09:29:24 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


Yes, it was totally inappropriate the way he discussed a relevant story that was recent. That kind of discussion is reserved for quiet rooms rented out by the NRA. For a Constitution circle jerk, you sure are hating on that First Amendment awfully hard.
 
2012-12-03 09:29:37 AM  

dittybopper: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.

It's a justification, not a limitation.


Worth reiterating.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" probably fell over the crowd like a wet blanket before somebody said, "Why?"

And then someone said "well, a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state, for starters."

And another was all "That's pretty good, let's work with that."

Then they probably went HERE HERE and called in the whores.
 
2012-12-03 09:30:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind?


Yes, I do.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:23 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


I always forget that one of the rules of responsible gun ownership is never talking about gun violence.

If you bring it up shortly after the gun owner murders people, you're being insensitive and capitalizing on tragedy. If you bring it up awhile after the gun owner murders people, it's old news and can't you just shut up, liberal?
 
2012-12-03 09:31:38 AM  

mr_a: Gun control, free speech.

Put them all together, and you get this nitwit using other people's tragedy to make his point.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]


Yes, because we should never talk about gun control after a recent tragedy involving guns. Which also means we will NEVER talk about gun control, since there's ALWAYS a recent tragedy involving guns.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:46 AM  

Bungles: Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.


It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?


Generally speaking, the second amendment is considered to cover personal armaments. Things one person can carry that can only reasonably target one person. Guns are the ones that usually come up because they're the most... equalizing of the personal arms, but technically it covers swords, knives, bows and arrows, tasers, pepper spray and so on.

Is it slightly arbitrary? Yeah. But so is the line where we allow restriction of the first amendment.
 
2012-12-03 09:31:58 AM  

Bungles: Leader O'Cola: "firearm" nope. try reading the text. "Arms", with a capital A

Arms= abbreviation of Armaments.

Notice how none of the right wing derpers ignore that they are already banned from owning nukes, chem/bio weapons, heavy ordnance, etc.


It'll be interesting to see what the argument about hand-held laser weapons will be, which will be with us in 30 years or so. Are they a nukey-style arm ("Ban them! Especially from foreighns!") or a bullet gun ("MORE! MORE!").

Actually, what's the argument for tasers? I'm not in the US, but to people consider taser ownership a "right"?


I don't think laser guns will be all that much fun, because they aren't going to be your slow Star Wars beams. It'll be like deadly laser tag. No recoil. No nothing. Hell the laser may even cauterize the would it causes.
 
2012-12-03 09:32:13 AM  
so?
 
2012-12-03 09:33:17 AM  

s2s2s2: Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting

Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!


Nukes for everyone!
 
2012-12-03 09:33:35 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

*Offer not valid to muslims

From that article:

Rather than allowing the building of more mega-mosques in the United States, we should halt existing projects and seriously consider shutting down existing mosques to prevent the proliferation of an ideology that has publicly pledged to destroy America.

Because freedom.


Now THAT'S the blatant hypocrisy that I've come to known and expect from American Thinker. 

Seriously though, did we just step back into the 1990's? I thought we all agreed that gun control is a political no-go.
 
2012-12-03 09:33:58 AM  

GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Militia Clause.

*shh* We're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist for some reason.


No, we're supposed to pretend that it means something different from how it was intended.

"Hey Clem, let's make it possible for people to form them there militias."
"Well, Billy-Bob, can't have none no militias if people done got no guns."
"I like the cut 'o yer jib, Clem. Need a militia to fight off an evil government like we just did!"
"Billy-Bob, don't fergit to put in there that we need guns BECAUSE we need militias."
"Will do, Clem."

Fast-forward:

"The government provides you a militia, so you can have a gun if you join it."

Ghosts of Clem and Billy-Bob facepalm.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:24 AM  
Oh crap! I had totally forgotten that the Kenyan usurper was going to confiscate my guns! Well, I better go cash in my retirement and buy a bunch of guns and ammo. That'll show 'em!

//pro second amendment, but I don't get the paranoia. I guess I should watch Fox News more often.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:37 AM  

one small post for man: s2s2s2: Tyrone Slothrop: Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting

Which other amendments say "the right of the people will not be infringed" as a limitation on "the people"? Did they not know what "infringed" means?

infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

How odd!

Nukes for everyone!


That brings up a very important question. If you had a nuclear weapon, who would you nuke?
 
2012-12-03 09:34:49 AM  

Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.


No one. Certainly not Obama, who has only expanded gun rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 502 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report