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.

(Opposing Views)   Gun advocacy group insists that them raffling off the same gun that killed Travyon Martin was totally unintentional. Why were they doing it on the day that George Zimmerman's defense attorney was scheduled to speak, you ask? Just a coincidence   (opposingviews.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, advocacy group, Gun advocacy, Florida Today, Republican Liberty Caucus, handguns  
•       •       •

2792 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2013 at 9:47 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-30 01:02:45 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or wa ...

Then what you're saying is that you really don't have freedom of speech.


I do in that there is little to no mechanism for ANYBODY really to stop me from exercising that freedom.

That's not as much the case with the second amendment; with both, the courts have decided that they extend only as far as they are compatible with the general welfare clause.
 
2013-10-30 01:03:00 AM  
If they really wanted to make money, they'd sell Travon taxidermied head-mounts that sing songs when you walk by.
 
2013-10-30 01:04:39 AM  

AngryDragon: ecause the "whitest" Mexican guy on the planet shot a black kid in self -defense, which was supported by a jury in a court of law.


That's not really an accurate summation.  The jury acquitted him of second-degree murder, essentially saying that he wasn't  intending to kill anyone before the fight started, and then rejected the addition of a manslaughter charge essentially because the DA going for Murder 2 in the first place proved she was trying to railroad the guy.

That's not quite the same thing as the self-defense argument being accepted.  An accepted self-defense argument usually means the accusation doesn't get past the grand jury and into trial in the first place, though it can still be used as part of the general defense arguing that there's insufficient evidence of malice for murder by posing it as a viable alternative scenario.

I mean, the general argument that the focus on this particular case is stupid I'd accept, but your insistence that the case was unambiguously one of self-defense with no complications I do not.

LoneWolf343: /am I'm still waiting on that example.


Example of what?  Armed insurrection and small arms resulting in major political change?

K.  Ireland.

Another one: Afghanistan in the '80s.  The bolshevik revolution in Russia as well, which went pretty well for about half a century before Stalin farked it up.

More recently, the war that eventually got South Sudan its freedom was primarily prosecuted by small arms for most of its history.

In the US, the battle for labor rights basically ended when everyone got so tired of getting shot (and firebombed) that they gave in on significant points and elected someone actually on the side of the laborers because the violence made them aware of the issues.

// If you come back with something on the order of the examples not counting because someone didn't pick up a gun and magically overthrow the entire government in a week, know in advance that it just makes you look stupid.  Armed resistance is the last resort of domestic politics, used only in extreme cases, for a reason... it's bloody, inefficient, and unreliable, and you're more likely to be a Whiskey Rebellion than a Bolshevik revolution.
 
2013-10-30 01:05:18 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.

and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.

No, the text of the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed by government. It's a restriction on the power of government rather than blanket declaration of a universal right.

The founding fathers thought that explicitly doling out rights implied that these rights are granted by government, rather than "God-given" and inalienable, so they tried to avoid doing so wherever possible.


That's what I love about our constitution and you don't. It's that the people have the power and not you as an individual. That's the great thing that made our nation. You may not like it, nor even understand or even think about what it means in todays world. Yet, you exercise as if it is a given, oh, wait. It is a given. That's something you need to think about.
 
2013-10-30 01:06:22 AM  

LoneWolf343: The_Sponge: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions

Seriously dude....f*ck you. Target practice and firearm safety are great hobbies to teach kids. I'm sorry that you have a serious case of hoplophobia.

I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of stupid, angry people with guns.


And yet your panties were in a wad just because a father takes his kids shooting.
 
2013-10-30 01:07:43 AM  

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.


Really? You are so poorly educated you don't know who this guy is?
images.forbes.com

Probably, hero. Your so educated and informed, enough to wave your dick around in a gun thread on Fark, but don't "know" who he is? Sure. Probably.

//Everyone believes you Mugato.
 
2013-10-30 01:10:10 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.

and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.

No, the text of the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed by government. It's a restriction on the power of government rather than blanket declaration of a universal right.

The founding fathers thought that explicitly doling out rights implied that these rights are granted by government, rather than "God-given" and inalienable, so they tried to avoid doing so wherever possible.

That's what I love about our constitution and you don't. It's that the people have the power and not you as an individual. That's the great thing that made our nation. You may not like it, nor even understand or even think about what it means in todays world. Yet, you exercise as if it is a given, oh, wait. It is a given. That's something you need to think about.


I'm sorry, which one of us is arguing 2nd amendment supremacy over the general welfare clause?

It sounds to me like you have real, fundamental issues with the way our constitution is set up.
 
2013-10-30 01:10:49 AM  

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.


You haven't heard of Michael Bloomberg? Come on.

What make/model of firearm do you own?
 
2013-10-30 01:10:53 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 m ...


That's really not the point is it? In some countries, you can still be sentenced to death for saying anything you want. That's not the case here is it. So what's that mechanism you talk about? Yes we can challenge all we want, that's the great thing about it. Abolish it? Think about that for a little while.
 
2013-10-30 01:12:19 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.

Really? You are so poorly educated you don't know who this guy is?
[images.forbes.com image 400x280]

Probably, hero. Your so educated and informed, enough to wave your dick around in a gun thread on Fark, but don't "know" who he is? Sure. Probably.

//Everyone believes you Mugato.


What does that have to do with my simple assertion that there will never be an armed insurrection of the US government?
 
2013-10-30 01:15:02 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 m ...

That's really not the point is it? In some countries, you can still be sentenced to death for saying anything you want. That's not the case here is it. So what's that mechanism you talk about? Yes we can challenge all we want, that's the great thing about it. Abolish it? Think about that for a little while.


Once again, I've never said we should abolish the 2nd amendment.

The irony is we don't need to; even the most ardent gun rights supporters already accept literally thousands of infringements on the right to bear arms. The line on what weapons we accept and don't accept is constantly moving, all we really need are a few minor corrections.
 
2013-10-30 01:16:50 AM  

udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."


Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.
 
2013-10-30 01:18:48 AM  

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.

I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.

Really? You are so poorly educated you don't know who this guy is?
[images.forbes.com image 400x280]

Probably, hero. Your so educated and informed, enough to wave your dick around in a gun thread on Fark, but don't "know" who he is? Sure. Probably.

//Everyone believes you Mugato.

What does that have to do with my simple assertion that there will never be an armed insurrection of the US government?


2.bp.blogspot.com

Wherever you want them....

Heh, and wow dude, you haven't been right or informed about anything else, why should I have faith in your non-insurrection opinion. In fact, I'm more likely to think it's inevitable now. THANKS, MUGATO!
 
2013-10-30 01:19:48 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a ...


Then under your thoughts, let's just get rid of them all. There's no need for them. They have no bearing on today and that shouldn't even be thought about. Right? Hell, let's just throw out all of the amendments and let ...........
 
2013-10-30 01:21:36 AM  

Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.


Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.
 
2013-10-30 01:23:13 AM  

doglover: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.


You may want to stop doing that.
 
2013-10-30 01:23:35 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.


I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.
 
2013-10-30 01:27:01 AM  

udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.


Right.  The BoR restricts the Federal Government from restricting a great many rights held by other governments and/or the People.  It also explicitly states that:

"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."
 
2013-10-30 01:27:50 AM  

udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.


If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?
 
2013-10-30 01:30:02 AM  

Yogimus: doglover: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.

You may want to stop doing that.


You might want to start.
 
2013-10-30 01:30:11 AM  

doglover: Plus, it was a glock I think.


Respectfully:  Zimmermann was NOT armed with a Glock.  It was a Kel-Tec 9mm, loaded with, IIRC, 115 grain 9mm JHPs.
 
2013-10-30 01:31:30 AM  
doglover:

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.

Zimmerman used a Kel-Tec 9mm.

They are very common pistols, cheap but they go bang when you pull the trigger, and have a great warranty.

This one is very light, and not any fun at all to fire. 'Bruising' and 'punishing' come to mind. Ouch.
 
2013-10-30 01:33:13 AM  

kerrigand: If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?


It certainly is NOT absolute, just as the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that is either fraudulent or likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace.

That's it.  I'm out, time for bed.  'Night!  :)
 
2013-10-30 01:33:50 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?


If you think it's absolute, then why do you accept ANY infringements? Why should the government be able to tell me I can't posses nuclear arms? Or shouldn't they?

And you don't even have to be THAT absurd about it. Howabout short barreled shotguns or apache pistols?
 
2013-10-30 01:36:19 AM  

udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.


Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure it's not you that is wrong? Is anyone else "wrong". Careful on how you answer that.
 
2013-10-30 01:39:10 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?

If you think it's absolute, then why do you accept ANY infringements? Why should the government be able to tell me I can't posses n ...


I'll let you think about what you just stated and you let me know if you accept the infringements afforded you.
 
2013-10-30 01:41:36 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...


Well, I certainly hope she doesn't have a large penis.
 
2013-10-30 01:43:39 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure it's not you that is wrong? Is anyone else "wrong". Careful on how you answer that.


I'm not saying you're wrong if you argue that it's an absolute right, I'm saying that you're ignoring the plain, objective reality that there are literally thousands of kinds of arms the government does not allow you to keep and bear, each one a clear infringement of the text of the second amendment, but deemed constitutional when viewed through the whole document, not just that one brief paragraph.

I think all reasonable people agree that individuals should not have nukes, but by simply the text of the 2nd, government shouldn't have a right to prevent it.
 
2013-10-30 01:45:36 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

If they're not as absolute a some people would want to believe, what gives you the ability to think any of the others do? Think about this for a minute. If one is not absolute, are the others?

If you think it's absolute, then why do you accept ANY infringements? Why should the government be able to tell me I can't posses n ...

I'll let you think about what you just stated and you let me know if you accept the infringements afforded you.


??? What? Do I accept the government's ban on some weapons?

Of course I do. Do you?
 
2013-10-30 01:48:08 AM  

twiztedjustin: No thanks, I'll just offer a blanket response: anti gun people are idiots.


I'm pretty sure there are a lot of pro-gun people who don't think that owning a gun means you get to chase down someone who wasn't doing anything wrong and shoot them dead when you catch them.
 
2013-10-30 01:54:06 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure ...


I'm not argueing with you about reasonable people. I'm arguing with you about people. The two don't intertwine. Your talking about something that doesn't exist. People and reasoning just don't happen, you and I are both proof of this. That's why these are there. To ensure that  1 people have the right to speak, doesn't matter what they say, but, that they have the right to. 2. They have the right to bear arms. Again, doesn't matter what arms, but they have the right to.

Honestly, what part of these two, do you not understand?
 
2013-10-30 02:01:26 AM  

doglover: Yogimus: doglover: Shostie: They're auctioning the same model of gun, not the actual gun that killed the kid, for what it's worth.

Plus, it was a glock I think. There's 10,000s of them out there. Trayvon was shot with the Starbucks of guns. I think it would be impossible to hold a decent raffle without at least one glock. Like a barbecue without meat.

You may want to stop doing that.

You might want to start.


Again, stop "thinking". Start learning.
 
2013-10-30 02:05:23 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you sure? Are you sure ...

I'm not argueing with you about reasonable people. I'm arguing with you about people. The two don't intertwine. Your talking about something that doesn't exist. People and reasoning just don't happen, you and I are both proof of this. That's why these are there. To ensure that  1 people have the right to speak, doesn't matter what they say, but, that they have the right to. 2. They have the right to bear arms. Again, doesn't matter what arms, but they have the right to.

Honestly, what part of these two, do you not understand?


The type of arms doesn't matter?

So, even if you wouldn't support it, would you agree that a legislative ban on assault weapons is constitutional on the same ground that a federal ban on short stock shotguns is constitutional?
 
2013-10-30 02:09:05 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you s ...


I'll agree to it, the moment that we no longer have the right say "hello" to our neighbor.
 
2013-10-30 02:11:45 AM  
Well the gun works, seems like a good idea to me. Trayvon deserved what he got, give it up libs.
 
2013-10-30 02:13:36 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you s ...


Tell you what, you show me an "assault weapon",  and I'll show you a "short stock" shotgun. By those wording, you'll never see either of the two.
 
2013-10-30 02:25:45 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."

Right...it limits things that the Government can do...because there's an individual right that belongs to the people.  This is why I watched the jurisprudence of the '90s incredulously.  The anti-gunners argument was that the RKBA applies ONLY to the National Guard the Army, and other Governmental actors, and that it wasn't a right, it didn't apply to actual people, and it didn't protect to both "keep" and "bear" arms.  If you insist that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means only that government actors can keep and bear arms, you have to also believe that any times the BoR mentions "People", it actually only applies to governmental actors.  That blows a whole lot of "Black Letter Law" out of the water for a great many OTHER amendments.  Remember:  If you assign a meaning to one word in the document, you have to apply the same meaning to every other time it appears.  That becomes QUITE problematic when applied to the First, Fourth, Fifth (person instead of people) and Ninth Amendments.

I don't dispute that there exists a defacto right for individuals to possess weapons, or that or that the 2nd grants any rights whatsoever to the government.

But at the same time, the rights of individuals aren't nearly as absolute as the gun rights fundamentalists would have us believe, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could dispute that fact.

Ok. so now we are down to the nut cutting. If someone disagrees with you, that makes them "not right". That's the problem and that's also the solution. That's why the constitution is there and in place. You can't be so obtuse to not see that. Why is it that someone that disagrees with you "wrong"? Are you s ...


I'll tell you what, if you can show me what the true differences are, I'll support it. I'm not talking about the looks or the makeup of the weapons, I'm talking about the "true" differences. You can't and you know it. It doesn't matter what the makeup is. You really, really need to quit  being such a candy ass and face up to life. It's not the gun that's killing you, it's the person. You really need to face that reality. Shiat happens, people do get killed. Sad as it is, they do. It's going to be a part of our life long after guns are gone. You can't control human emotions, as much as you want to, you just can't. It really is that simple.
 
2013-10-30 02:40:16 AM  

Frank N Stein: Bucky Katt: mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.

Yep.

Let me guess. Because you didn't read the article, you think that this gun is actually the very same gun that was used to shoot Trayvon, and not simply the same model. Furthermore, if you even respond to this you'll say that you did in fact know it was just the model, then you'll come up with some retarded excuse on why people should be outraged


Let me guess: you piss in your own corn flakes.
 
2013-10-30 03:13:05 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: doglover: Plus, it was a glock I think.

Respectfully:  Zimmermann was NOT armed with a Glock.  It was a Kel-Tec 9mm, loaded with, IIRC, 115 grain 9mm JHPs.


Hence the qualifier "I think"
 
2013-10-30 03:20:07 AM  
Mugato: ... to the entire military holding our own country against a few hundred American gun nuts?

Do you know how many guns there are in America? There are more than a few hundred gun nuts just in my tiny hometown, much less the rest of the country. The NRA alone has over 5 million members. Pretty sure that's considerably bigger than any of the armed forces.

Besides, if it gets down to the nitty-gritty (which I doubt it ever will), I can't imagine there will be too many service members too keen on gunning down fellow Americans. At least, I'm hoping there's enough honor left in our military to refuse being part of anything so disgraceful.


The fact that the Trayvon Martin's case was (clumsily) used to promote various social agendas is unfortunate, because nearly everyone is worse for it. Certainly the larger issues of gun control, race relations, and social justice have taken a huge step backwards, and now it's impossible to look at any of these issues without people emotionally and irrationally spouting nonsense.
 
2013-10-30 03:23:26 AM  

kerrigand: Your talking about something that doesn't exist.


Your are so right.
 
2013-10-30 03:42:01 AM  

WhyKnot: Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...


She also protested about stop and frisk, which while appalling, had even less to with Trayvon.

She's doing the Jackson/Sharpton celebrity complaining tour.
 
2013-10-30 04:30:34 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Gun control started out as a means to keep minorities from owning guns. Even Michael Moore touches on this in "Bowling for Columbine". A case could be made that gun control is STILL used to try to disarm minorities.


Indeed.  Consider the 'Terry Stops' that the NYPD were doing until it was declared illegal - the vast majority of those searched under the 'Stop & Frisk' program were minorities.  What were they looking for?  Weapons and drugs.

Then consider all the states with 'may issue' weapons permits - okayed by the sheriff.  Control the sheriff, control the permits.  A racist sheriff can handily ensure that the 'wrong sorts' don't get the permits.

You don't need to be explicit with the racism in the laws for it to be effectively there.
 
2013-10-30 07:28:05 AM  
The group raffling the Kel-Tec is based 10 miles from Kel-Tec's headquarters. It was probably donated.

/I want a Sub2000
//and a Hi-Point out of morbid curiosity
 
2013-10-30 07:43:32 AM  
Gun nuts are a special kind of shiat. Same wink and nudge playbook employed by pussy racists.
 
2013-10-30 08:54:48 AM  
 
2013-10-30 09:03:15 AM  

Jim_Callahan: That's not quite the same thing as the self-defense argument being accepted.  An accepted self-defense argument usually means the accusation doesn't get past the grand jury and into trial in the first place, though it can still be used as part of the general defense arguing that there's insufficient evidence of malice for murder by posing it as a viable alternative scenario.


The governor specifically ordered the special prosecutor, appointed because the normal process couldn't find enough evidence to bring charges, to bypass the grand jury.  They knew that there would not have been a recommendation to prosecute.  I would agree with your assertion if the process had been followed.  It wasn't though.  If it had been there would have been no trial.
 
2013-10-30 09:14:35 AM  

udhq: If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."


Government's have powers, and the constitution limits their power to prevent them from infringing upon our rights.

The COTUS does not grant rights, it protects them.

I'm really surprised you don't understand this given the amount of time you've dedicated to the topic.
 
2013-10-30 09:16:58 AM  

udhq: That's not as much the case with the second amendment; with both, the courts have decided that they extend only as far as they are compatible with the general welfare clause.


Citation needed.
 
2013-10-30 09:21:29 AM  

Road Rash: Interesting read.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should -l ove-the-Second-Amendment


I think it's ludicrous to suggest liberals don't love the Second Amendment. I consider myself liberal and I've always been a supporter of gun rights. Always. What I have a problem with is the *actual* "gun nuts" the above article seems dismissive of. There are plenty of such people who obviously relish the notion that some day, if they're lucky, they'll get a chance to shoot someone who makes the mistake of looking at them sideways. And they hope and pray that guy's a liberal, so they can help rid the world of that stupid, lazy, anti-American scum. I see plenty of them in the weapons forums my comments above note. It's *those* people I have serious problems with and who justify my positions on the need for more sensible and carefully constructed restrictions on types of weapons and their owners. This does not make me anti-gun or anti-Second Amendment; it makes me rational. None of our Constitutional rights are absolute. The Second Amendment is not special in this regard.

I grew up in a household filled with guns and headed by a pretty dramatically conservative father. But you know what? In our house guns were very carefully controlled under lock and key and before any of us ever held a weapon we were given the rules in strict fashion. Also, my father - wisely, I think - was never dogmatic with us about *any* hardcore conservative ideas. Instead, we grew up to respect authority, institutions, and guns, and we learned when it was right or necessary to stand against both injustice *and* stupidity in matters of all three.

Guns definitely have their place in our culture, and they should - and will - continue to have it. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean the *real* "gun nuts" get to control the debate. Honestly, the way they've acted in recent years suggests they have no place in the debate if you ask me. It's time for the adults to do the talking.

This of course is true of extremists on the other side, as well, but in my experience, those folks aren't taken very seriously by the public at large, so they're not as much of a threat to rationality as the nutters.
 
Displayed 50 of 277 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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


  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