Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring your guns to DC

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 18
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 18 template Next
  • #31
    Originally posted by BlackCat
    What I see is that there is a society that accepts that lots of its citicens are killed because guns are legal.

    What really is crazy is that this state is based on conditions as they where some 200+ years ago.
    No, you misunderstand me. You have no idea about how high the body count got...
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

    Comment

    • #32
      Originally posted by DanS
      Don't need to be conservative to be resistant to novel interpretations of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
      the problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the reference to militias earlier in the amendment.

      Comment

      • #33
        The justification is mostly out of date, but that doesn't change the clear-as-day dictum that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

        There's just very little wiggle-room here. I have little patience for sophistry on the subject.
        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

        Comment

        • #34
          Originally posted by OzzyKP




          The 2nd Amendment is not a "collective right" that idea is anti-gun wishful thinking. Look at the actual text:

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

          Does it say "the right of militia members to keep in bear arms" ? No, it says the right of THE PEOPLE. Just like the 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..." also refers to the people. This means individual people, there is no other way to read it.

          They only mentioned the militia as an explanation for why THE PEOPLE should have the right to bear arms. Of course it was understood then that the militia was just people taking muskets out of their barn and coming together in times of danger. There is no way they meant the National Guard, which is pretty silly.
          I agree with you that its a reference to a more or less universal militia. Not to something like our modern National Guard, which is more selective. But it does say WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Thats not consitent with a purely individual right either. And those 18th c militias, IIUC didnt take everyone. Criminals, and the mentally ill, for example, were excluded. They were well regulated.

          So its a reference to an 18th century institution which no longer exists. That doesnt make it an individual right, and it doesnt make the DC gun law unconstitutional.
          "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

          Comment

          • #35
            Originally posted by DanS
            The justification is mostly out of date, but that doesn't change the clear-as-day dictum that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

            There's just very little wiggle-room here. I have little patience for sophistry on the subject.
            No, whats clear as day is that in THIS instance "the people" is a group. That "the people' is used differently in amendments that make no reference to a collective institution, like a well regulated militia, is irrelevant.
            "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

            Comment

            • #36
              I think that's just sophistry, LOTM. Apparently, you do not agree. That's fine.
              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

              Comment

              • #37
                Originally posted by DanS
                I think that's just sophistry, LOTM. Apparently, you do not agree. That's fine.
                no other part of the bill of rights has a specific rationale included. This one does. What right have we to decide that the rationale is a red herring?
                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                Comment

                • #38
                  Originally posted by DanS


                  No, you misunderstand me. You have no idea about how high the body count got...
                  Yeah, I guess I did

                  I won't deny that we have crimes here where the criminals are armed, but I really doubt that any of those wouod have been prevented if guns where allowed in general - quite contrary - there would have been way more crimes involving guns and people getting killed if they had ben allowed.

                  I know that there are looneys that would say that criminal would get guns while innocents doesn't, but that isn't true - the criminals can't get guns if there isn't anyone available in the society.
                  With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                  Steven Weinberg

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lord of the mark
                    no other part of the bill of rights has a specific rationale included. This one does. What right have we to decide that the rationale is a red herring?
                    Well, what I'm telling you is that in my opinion it doesn't matter the rationale (indeed, the rationale could be half-baked). The document is still clear as day on its face that the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

                    We've got professional contortionists (and counter-contortionists) making a living on this because it's not a popular provision nowadays.
                    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      You guys are tiresome, treating your constitution as some holy scripture insteadof as a political text.

                      If it's in the constitution, it must be good!

                      I guess fundamentalism isn't only a religious phenomenon in the US...
                      "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                      "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                      "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        You're right. I think we should just get rid of the provision, just like we got rid of the 3/5ths rule. But it's there. There's not enough political support to repeal the provision.
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Spiffor
                          You guys are tiresome, treating your constitution as some holy scripture insteadof as a political text.

                          If it's in the constitution, it must be good!

                          I guess fundamentalism isn't only a religious phenomenon in the US...

                          HEY LOOK

                          a headscarf

                          To us, it is the BEAST.

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Spiffor
                            You guys are tiresome, treating your constitution as some holy scripture insteadof as a political text.

                            If it's in the constitution, it must be good!

                            I guess fundamentalism isn't only a religious phenomenon in the US...
                            I probably would have said it nicer, but Spiff hits where it really hurts.
                            With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                            Steven Weinberg

                            Comment

                            • #44
                              It's worse than that. It's in the Bill of Rights. Right up front. Who's going to gainsay the Bill of Rights?
                              I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                              Comment

                              • #45
                                Originally posted by DanS
                                You're right. I think we should just get rid of the provision, just like we got rid of the 3/5ths rule. But it's there. There's not enough political support to repeal the provision.
                                One of the arguments (and a significant one at that) against repelling it, is that the provision is in the constitution.
                                That's what bothers me. Something completely obsolete is in the constitution - if it had been a law, it'd have been overturned decades ago. But since it made its way in this particular piece of paper so many Yanks cherish, many Yanks support it staying in place.
                                "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                                "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                                "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 18 template Next
                                Working...
                                X