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  
•       •       •

1724 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year 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 09:34:51 AM

s2s2s2: 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.


Why do you support infringing the right of the people?
 
2012-12-03 09:36:01 AM

HotWingConspiracy: 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?


Was the guy ever convicted of anything else before hand?

If he wasn't, then I don't think gun control would've made that much of a difference, it was just a domestic dispute gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I'm more concerned about what his mental state was when he did that more than anything else.
 
2012-12-03 09:36:47 AM

dittybopper: whistleridge: The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

There is a specific process to do that. It requires 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 75% of the states. We've amended the Constitution 17 times since the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified.

The Constitution *IS* a living document, in the sense that it can be changed to suite modern times, but you can't just say "Oh, well, we know better, so we'll just ignore the parts we don't like". The founding fathers understood that times change, and they also understood that people sometimes panic and do stupid things for transient issues, so they made the Constitution changeable, but not *EASILY* changeable.

It's brilliant, actually: It's hard enough to change it that the latest panic about whatever can't be easily written into it, but for long term changes (like stopping slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc.), you can change it. I'd say the only real exception to the "latest panic" in history was the Volstead Act, and we all know what problems that caused.


It's probably harder to change than the Founders foresaw. There's actually been a mathematical proof done fairly recently that, despite the proportions not changing, the fact that we've gone from 13 to 50 states actually makes it significantly harder to amend the constitution.
 
2012-12-03 09:37:11 AM

Mrtraveler01: I thought we all agreed that gun control is a political no-go.


In all fairness, we're on the internet. The internet loves arguing about issues that were resolved pretty definitely a long time ago. Whether abortion should be legal, whether Ron Paul is nationally electable, etc.
 
2012-12-03 09:37:31 AM

EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.


There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:15 AM

vygramul: There was, however, private ownership of artillery.


Yes, but that was back before we thought of the children.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:34 AM

EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.


Oh, and while I'm at it, this rationale also means we can censor the Internet because the Founders didn't foresee such a powerful communications medium as the Internet. You only have free speech with movable-block printing presses.
 
2012-12-03 09:38:41 AM

Mrtraveler01: HotWingConspiracy: 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?

Was the guy ever convicted of anything else before hand?

If he wasn't, then I don't think gun control would've made that much of a difference, it was just a domestic dispute gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I'm more concerned about what his mental state was when he did that more than anything else.


You have to say this for Belcher. He lived the NRA slogan to its fullest.

cybehype.com
 
2012-12-03 09:39:48 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!


Yeah, right? How DARE we freedom-loving Americans try and restrict the Second Amendment rights of Iran!
 
2012-12-03 09:40:23 AM
reappropriate.co
 
2012-12-03 09:40:25 AM

ChaoticLimbs: Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.
Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

/scholarship- it works, biatches.


Let's not cloud the issues with the facts.
 
2012-12-03 09:41:18 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!


Except brown people of course! Let's be ridiculous!
 
2012-12-03 09:41:42 AM

Hobodeluxe: Cythraul: 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.

Huh?

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?

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.

food, guns, training and equipment.

It's "well regulated" not "well ordered" but both words carry the dual meaning. It's not really as clear as it's made out to be. That was on purpose. Like most things in the constitution, The Founders punted. Their job was to agree on the framework enough to put them in a new and fragile nation's basis of law. In the process, they were able to settle precisely fark all. That's why we have been perfecting and clarifying the verbiage for 2 centuries.

The Well Regulated Militia, was argued by federalists to mean a standing army, and was therefore treated as the training, arming, uniforming, and most importantly, centralization of the armed forces.

The anti-federalists argued that it was the role of the states to regulate their own militia, equip, train and lead them. And to allow the federal government to call on them in national defense with proper authority given by congress.

It was phrased as it was specifically to PROMOTE this confusion, rather than assuage it. It got the AF's and the F's to sit down at a table and think that the second amendment was written with them in mind.
 
2012-12-03 09:42:19 AM

bulldg4life: dittybopper: It's a justification, not a limitation.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.


"A well established credit rating, being necessary to the procurement of rental cars, the right of the people to keep and bear Credit Cards, shall not be infringed."

That's a justification - you need a credit card to rent a car, thus you should get a credit card. That's not a limitation - there's other justifications for having a credit card (like being poor and still wanting booze, or wanting to establish a credit rating), and it makes no commentary on the legitimacy (or not) of those other justifications.
 
2012-12-03 09:43:06 AM
And that's why the Constitution could use a good rewriting to get rid of cruft like this. In the Framers' time, your personal firepower was on par with the government's, and such an amendment made sense. Now, the government greatly outweapons you, and your guns aren't going to be watering the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution anytime soon. Act up, and you'll get a big old dose of Ruby Ridge or Waco shoved up your ass. And if that fails, you'll get obliterated by a UAV-launched missile you never see coming. Owning guns is a fine, useful thing for hunting and protecting your home, but it's not any more useful to your day-to-day well-being than the right to own a car or a computer, now that it isn't possible for Joe Sixpack to pose a credible threat to the government. We don't enshrine the rights to own cars and computers with special amendments, so it isn't clear why gun owning, or soldier-quartering-in-homes amendments need to be up there with crucial stuff like free speech and jury trials.
 
2012-12-03 09:43:35 AM

mod3072: 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.


Fox News is the Cthulhu of television. The more you find out about it, the more insane you become.
 
2012-12-03 09:44:11 AM

vygramul: EyeballKid: [www.californiauctioneers.com image 640x264]
By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

There wasn't private ownership of semi-automatic weapons at the time.

There was, however, private ownership of artillery.


"At nine o'clock every night, Greenwich time," said Wemmick, "the gun fires. There he is, you see! And when you hear him go, I think you'll say he's a Stinger."

The piece of ordnance referred to, was mounted in a separate fortress, constructed of lattice-work. It was protected from the weather by an ingenious little tarpaulin contrivance in the nature of an umbrella.

/those were the days
 
2012-12-03 09:44:17 AM
farm4.staticflickr.com

LOL it's about freedom though
 
2012-12-03 09:44:32 AM
Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.
 
2012-12-03 09:44:40 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: 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.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to say anything they want to/about anyone at any time or any place?
 
2012-12-03 09:44:47 AM

HotWingConspiracy: 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?


Jesus. Sensitive, aren't they? He "used the tragedy" to decry Gun Culture. It was a social commentary, not a political one. If anyone took that as a call for legislative intervention, they are jumping at shadows.
 
2012-12-03 09:44:52 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: 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.

Strange that no other amendment needed a "justification". Also strange that they used that one, and not, say, self defense or hunting.


Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).

Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).


The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

I bolded the non-limiting justification clauses.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples, but there are at least 4 examples of non-limiting justification clauses that are roughly contemporaneous to the Second Amendment (three predate it, one comes after) In fact, the Rhode Island freedom of the press looks to be basically cribbed directly from the Second Amendment.

No, it's not strange, and it doesn't
 
2012-12-03 09:46:00 AM
Gun thread based on American Thinker thread. Popcorn is sold out
 
2012-12-03 09:46:14 AM

jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.


But without them, think of how dull the Politics tab would be.
 
2012-12-03 09:47:00 AM
Um, duh?
 
2012-12-03 09:47:00 AM

mod3072: /pro second amendment, but I don't get the paranoia. I guess I should watch Fox News more often.


If there were more of you and less of the NRA types, I would probably start taking pro-gun advocates seriously.
 
2012-12-03 09:47:20 AM

jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.


Ignore those whiny supreme court justices.
 
2012-12-03 09:47:45 AM

monoski: Gun thread based on American Thinker thread. Popcorn is sold out


Why do you think Ethonol is 10% of fuel rather than 100%?
 
2012-12-03 09:48:12 AM

dittybopper: No, it's not strange, and it doesn't


Shush, you. EVERY word in the holy Constitution MUST be considered as significant as every other word. The Founding Fathers were just that damned good.
 
2012-12-03 09:48:16 AM

Cythraul: dittybopper: vpb: Which is why they limited it to state militias. Right.

No they didn't. The militia clause is a justification, not a limitation.

[rjw57.github.com image 500x420]


justification (plural justifications)
A reason, explanation, or excuse which provides convincing, morally acceptable support for behavior or for a belief or occurrence.

Hmmm. "The militia clause in the Second Amendment is a [justification, reason, explanation, excuse] for the individual right enumerated in the operative clause".

Nope. I'm using it the correct way.
 
2012-12-03 09:48:18 AM

Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though


I'm impressed that there's only one misspelling in that sign.
 
2012-12-03 09:48:51 AM

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: 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.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?

Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to say anything they want to/about anyone at any time or any place?


Yes I do. I recognize that the rights in First and Second Amendments are not absolute.
 
2012-12-03 09:49:43 AM

Epoch_Zero: LOL it's about freedom though


If killing people because they pinched my yard sign is wrong I don't want to be right.
 
2012-12-03 09:50:10 AM

vygramul: jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.

But without them, think of how dull the Politics tab would be.


Is that why we need three crybaby gun threads in less than 24 hours? I guess anything that attracts obsessive-compulsives is good for lots of clicks.
 
2012-12-03 09:50:19 AM

Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though

alleged

Obama supporters. You have no proof. Maybe they were just art lovers who wanted a pretty picture? Circumstantial evidence is always so damning...

Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

Shooting them offhand certainly is speedy, and I suppose technically it is also facing your accuser, but otherwise it just tramples all over those other rights.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:26 AM

whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.


hey look ad hominem
 
2012-12-03 09:51:37 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


This discussion isn't about what people support, it is about what the constitution says. Had I written the amendment in question, I'd have worded it for 21st century idiots, of course.
 
2012-12-03 09:51:45 AM

whistleridge: 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).


I could be wrong, but I think the 3/5ths thing didn't have anything to do with voting directly. Slaves couldn't vote, period, and their masters didn't get more than one vote. It had to do with calculating the number of votes a state would get in the electoral college, a compromise between not including blacks at all, since they couldn't vote, which would have resulted in very few electoral votes for the southern states, and counting them the same as whites.
 
2012-12-03 09:52:38 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Epoch_Zero: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

LOL it's about freedom though

I'm impressed that there's only one misspelling in that sign.


Out of the 2 Constitutional amendments mentioned in the sign, both are misused. Next time, I'd forego the whole ink and words thing and stick with smearing one's own feces.
 
2012-12-03 09:52:56 AM
equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and, the right to practice religion and the right to own slaves.

ftfy
 
2012-12-03 09:53:09 AM

whistleridge: Shooting them offhand certainly is speedy, and I suppose technically it is also facing your accuser, but otherwise it just tramples all over those other rights.


If myopically focusing exclusively on a single right in exclusion to all others when it's convenient for my personal dogma is wrong, I don't want to be right.

sprawl15: hey look ad hominem


Don't use words you don't understand.
 
2012-12-03 09:53:27 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: 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.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?


You see why I don't trust you to interpret the second amendment?
 
2012-12-03 09:53:32 AM

sprawl15: whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem


For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.
 
2012-12-03 09:54:12 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: 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.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?

Do you recognize any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to say anything they want to/about anyone at any time or any place?

Yes I do. I recognize that the rights in First and Second Amendments are not absolute.


And hence, we cannot own nuclear weapons, and our artillery and automatic weapon options are highly limited and highly regulated. So pretty much, we can own semi-automatic weapons. We're limited to 1945 technology for firearms (and not even all of that) for the second amendment. The first is limited only in how one is allowed to use technology, not the technology itself.

And I'm fine with it being there. If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts, I'm going to take issue with it.
 
2012-12-03 09:54:48 AM

jso2897: vygramul: jso2897: Who gives a shiat? Nobody thinks gun rights are under attack except for a few whiny paranoids.
Let them whine - I pay them no mind.

But without them, think of how dull the Politics tab would be.

Is that why we need three crybaby gun threads in less than 24 hours? I guess anything that attracts obsessive-compulsives is good for lots of clicks.


I was thinking more broadly, but yes.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:41 AM
This thread needs more gun porn.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Yes, that's right, it fires .45 ACP, .45 Colt Long, and .410 shotgun shells.

Now if I could just get my hands on some .410 buck and ball.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:45 AM

vygramul: If large numbers of people tell me I have to limit myself to the 19th century, like pre-Heller DC and Chicago and Massachusetts the South, I'm going to take issue with it.




ftfy
/19th Century, mind you, on a good day
 
2012-12-03 09:55:55 AM

ghare: For you newbs, if sprawl15 is against it, it's probably a good idea.


Considering that you don't realise that Sprawl is an overly-sarcastic libby libpants (not even a troll, just very sarcastic), I don't think you're really in a position to call anybody else "Newbs." :P
 
2012-12-03 09:56:32 AM

s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: 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.

Why do you support infringing the right of the people?

You see why I don't trust you to interpret the second amendment?


I apologize for being inexact. Let me rephrase it for your legally and grammatically keen mind.

Do you believe any limitation what so ever on the right of an individual to keep any carry weapons of any kind is legitimate under the Second Amendment?
 
2012-12-03 09:57:26 AM
That's nice... *pats American Thinker on the head*
 
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 »






Report