Some Liberals do this thing after shootings that is so hypocritical.

[88m3]

It is what it is breh

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Actually it does, according to the people who wrote the damn thing and the Supreme Court. Sorry friend, the only dumb being displayed here is your ignorance to the law.

Nah your thread is dumb and I'll explain why (Your cited SCOTUS cases are irrelevant btw. Your claim is that gun control is "crip walking on the Constitution," so let's stick to the intent of the framers as opposed to some Supreme Court judges opinion on it, lest you want to defend blind super PACs because of the Citizens United ruling).

1. Your initial premise of accusing liberals of hypocrisy for opposing The Patriot Act and FISA and being pro-gun control is non-sequitur. Many do not see calling for regulations and restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles an infringement on liberty, and it certainly does not compare in magnitude or scale to warrantless wiretapping, which is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment because there's no probable cause for roaming warrantless wiretaps. They didn't even try to fight it in court, they just urged lawmakers not to prosecute because there isn't even a question of the constitutionality of it.

Even if we do go with your claim that regulating assault rifles is an infringement on liberty, well, every right granted in the Constitution is limited in some respect. I'll go to the famous "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" example. So obviously people who are against FISA and the Patriot Act and for gun control just have a different threshold and interpretation of what liberties they think should be limited and to what degree. That doesn't make them hypocrites.

You might want to watch who you point the finger at for hypocrisy because many would argue that social security and other social welfare programs you support are not constitutional unless you stretch the fukk out of the general welfare clause in article I. You can't pick and choose what you want to be strict constitutional interpreter about then call people hypocrites if they see things another way.

2. It's silly to say you know that the framers intended the 2nd amendment to not restrict any types of firearms whatsoever, even semi-automatic assault rifles, when it was written at the time when the most advanced firearm was the flintlock rifle. I will remind you that the Constitution was meant to be a living document, of course.

Look at the 2nd amendent.

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.

It's easy to see why the framers would want to give robust rights to arms to people when they led a revolution themselves against a colonial power and were fighting against the American Indians whose land they stole. And they wanted to reassure anti-federalists that militias would've be disarmed. The 2nd amendment was more about granting rights to form a militia to combat Indians or tyrannical government and appeasing those with militia leanings than it was about personal protection and this is common knowledge.

But that's neither here nor there, really. Again, it says the people should have the right to bear arms and it will not be infringed. But the line has to be drawn somewhere unless you think people should be able to own their personal nuclear missile silos.

Where do you draw the line? You can carry a semi-automatic assault rifle, but not a fully automatic machine gun? What about silencers? What about extended clips? Can I pack a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? What about hand grenades? Can I put land mines in my yard? What about a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher and stinger missiles? Can I drive a tank? A gunboat? White phosphorous?

There were no semi-automatic assault rifles and extended clips that hold 50 rounds in 1787. The framers couldn't even fathom that, just like we can't fathom the weapons of the future.

I'll try. Let's say in the future, we can use our mobile devices to call in small aerial drones that fire hails of projectiles that we could call in like missile strikes to cut people down while we're in our homes. Should that be legal? Hey, if you ban them, according to your logic, that's a violation of the 2nd amendment.

So everyone draws the line somewhere. I might draw the line at semi-automatic assault rifles. You might draw the line at fully automatic machine guns...or RPGs, I don't know.

3. You kinda discredited yourself a bit by how you framed it in the beginning. Not only the bogus hypocrisy charge, but you called regulations and restrictions on military-style firearms for private citizens "cripwalking on the Constitution," instead of just stating you think it places unfair limits on the 2nd amendment, which is the type of hyperbolic, sensationalized rhetoric one would expect to hear from Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh, and makes it hard to take you serious as someone operating from cold logic as you're posturing to be.

 

[stealthbomber]

why even argue with gun nuts?

if they wanna stay strapped, fukk em, let em all shoot each other.

natural selection has a funny way of working.



oh wait, republicans don't believe in evolution

 

[88m3]

 

[Type Username Here]

I hear spouting imaginary generalisations about imaginary groups of people makes you look smart dude...

Nah your thread is dumb and I'll explain why (Your cited SCOTUS cases are irrelevant btw. Your claim is that gun control is "crip walking on the Constitution," so let's stick to the intent of the framers as opposed to some Supreme Court judges opinion on it, lest you want to defend blind super PACs because of the Citizens United ruling).

1. Your initial premise of accusing liberals of hypocrisy for opposing The Patriot Act and FISA and being pro-gun control is non-sequitur. Many do not see calling for regulations and restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles an infringement on liberty, and it certainly does not compare in magnitude or scale to warrantless wiretapping, which is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment because there's no probable cause for roaming warrantless wiretaps. They didn't even try to fight it in court, they just urged lawmakers not to prosecute because there isn't even a question of the constitutionality of it.

Even if we do go with your claim that regulating assault rifles is an infringement on liberty, well, every right granted in the Constitution is limited in some respect. I'll go to the famous "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" example. So obviously people who are against FISA and the Patriot Act and for gun control just have a different threshold and interpretation of what liberties they think should be limited and to what degree. That doesn't make them hypocrites.

You might want to watch who you point the finger at for hypocrisy because many would argue that social security and other social welfare programs you support are not constitutional unless you stretch the fukk out of the general welfare clause in article I. You can't pick and choose what you want to be strict constitutional interpreter about then call people hypocrites if they see things another way.

2. It's silly to say you know that the framers intended the 2nd amendment to not restrict any types of firearms whatsoever, even semi-automatic assault rifles, when it was written at the time when the most advanced firearm was the flintlock rifle. I will remind you that the Constitution was meant to be a living document, of course.

Look at the 2nd amendent.

It's easy to see why the framers would want to give robust rights to arms to people when they led a revolution themselves against a colonial power and were fighting against the American Indians whose land they stole. And they wanted to reassure anti-federalists that militias would've be disarmed. The 2nd amendment was more about granting rights to form a militia to combat Indians or tyrannical government and appeasing those with militia leanings than it was about personal protection and this is common knowledge.

But that's neither here nor there, really. Again, it says the people should have the right to bear arms and it will not be infringed. But the line has to be drawn somewhere unless you think people should be able to own their personal nuclear missile silos.

Where do you draw the line? You can carry a semi-automatic assault rifle, but not a fully automatic machine gun? What about silencers? What about extended clips? Can I pack a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? What about hand grenades? Can I put land mines in my yard? What about a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher and stinger missiles? Can I drive a tank? A gunboat? White phosphorous?

There were no semi-automatic assault rifles and extended clips that hold 50 rounds in 1787. The framers couldn't even fathom that, just like we can't fathom the weapons of the future.

I'll try. Let's say in the future, we can use our mobile devices to call in small aerial drones that fire hails of projectiles that we could call in like missile strikes to cut people down while we're in our homes. Should that be legal? Hey, if you ban them, according to your logic, that's a violation of the 2nd amendment.

So everyone draws the line somewhere. I might draw the line at semi-automatic assault rifles. You might draw the line at fully automatic machine guns...or RPGs, I don't know.

3. You kinda discredited yourself a bit by how you framed it in the beginning. Not only the bogus hypocrisy charge, but you called regulations and restrictions on military-style firearms for private citizens "cripwalking on the Constitution," instead of just stating you think it places unfair limits on the 2nd amendment, which is the type of hyperbolic, sensationalized rhetoric one would expect to hear from Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh, and makes it hard to take you serious as someone operating from cold logic as you're posturing to be.

why even argue with gun nuts?

if they wanna stay strapped, fukk em, let em all shoot each other.

natural selection has a funny way of working.



oh wait, republicans don't believe in evolution

This is the level of discourse in this forum. I bring up a simple point, and then back it up extensively with historical and legal proof, and I get attacked personally and am subjected to long posts that provide no actual argument or proof.

Go head, do a little research on what the founding fathers and men of the enlightenment thought about the 2nd Amendment principles. You'll be presently surprised at just how much they took into consideration future scenarios and weapons.

But keep calling me names, rush Limbaugh, gun nut and posting long winded posts that amount to no argument. I'll be here if any of you decide to bring any valid counter arguments.

 

[Loose]

I bet you think guns with silencers and fukking supressions should be legal too huh

 

[IGSaint12]

This is the level of discourse in this forum. I bring up a simple point, and then back it up extensively with historical and legal proof, and I get attacked personally and am subjected to long posts that provide no actual argument or proof.

Go head, do a little research on what the founding fathers and men of the enlightenment thought about the 2nd Amendment principles. You'll be presently surprised at just how much they took into consideration future scenarios and weapons.

But keep calling me names, rush Limbaugh, gun nut and posting long winded posts that amount to no argument. I'll be here if any of you decide to bring any valid counter arguments.

Victor gave you a pretty detailed counter, you just chose to ignore because it doesn't fit the answer you want so you ignore it.

 

[stealthbomber]

This is the level of discourse in this forum. I bring up a simple point, and then back it up extensively with historical and legal proof, and I get attacked personally and am subjected to long posts that provide no actual argument or proof.

Go head, do a little research on what the founding fathers and men of the enlightenment thought about the 2nd Amendment principles. You'll be presently surprised at just how much they took into consideration future scenarios and weapons.

But keep calling me names, rush Limbaugh, gun nut and posting long winded posts that amount to no argument. I'll be here if any of you decide to bring any valid counter arguments.

i dont give a fukk what the founders wanted. its 2012 nikka. the constitution was drafted in 1787 when they were shooting flintlock rifles, traveling the sea by steamboat and the US was only 13 states. much of what it says is irrelevant to modern day.

shyts done changed and some of their beliefs and laws are irrelevant. the three-fifths compromise was superseded. a little revision in the 2nd amendment isn't too crazy of a request. imo the amendment system isn't used nearly enough.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4[/ame]

^^^ we won't advance as a society until this happens (some of it at least)

 

[alybaba]

I hope you recognize that due to your experience as a veteran in a combat zone, you have a naturally skewed perspective when it comes to guns and gun control that may not necessarily shared by those who have lived as civilians for the entirety of their lives.

 

[Type Username Here]

Victor gave you a pretty detailed counter, you just chose to ignore because it doesn't fit the answer you want so you ignore it.

Nah, he really didn't. He dismissed the Court's opinion outright and went on to state his own and alter the interpretation of the original amendment without ANY sources or proof.

Look at how he started it:

Nah your thread is dumb and I'll explain why (Your cited SCOTUS cases are irrelevant btw. Your claim is that gun control is "crip walking on the Constitution," so let's stick to the intent of the framers as opposed to some Supreme Court judges opinion on it, lest you want to defend blind super PACs because of the Citizens United ruling)

What intent of the fathers is he talking about? I show a small portion of evidence where they explicitly say what the amendment stands for. There is MUCH more.

i dont give a fukk what the founders wanted. its 2012 nikka. the constitution was drafted in 1787 when they were shooting flintlock rifles, traveling the sea by steamboat and the US was only 13 states. much of what it says is irrelevant to modern day.

shyts done changed and some of their beliefs and laws are irrelevant. the three-fifths compromise was superseded. a little revision in the 2nd amendment isn't too crazy of a request. imo the amendment system isn't used nearly enough.

The Constitution is not perfect. The Supreme Court is not that perfect. But it has a system built into it to change it. Those things you mentioned were altered and change using the legal system, the Constitution itself as reference, and the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't magic breh. There is a system to follow.

Has anyone here proposed Amending the Constitution to alter the 2nd? NO.

I bet you think guns with silencers and fukking supressions should be legal too huh

Silencers no. I don't even like handguns, they are inferior weapons.

Now, a combat weapon such as a Rifle needs a flash suppressor. You can't sit in an ambush, fire your weapon and give your direct position away.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

This is the level of discourse in this forum. I bring up a simple point, and then back it up extensively with historical and legal proof, and I get attacked personally and am subjected to long posts that provide no actual argument or proof.

Go head, do a little research on what the founding fathers and men of the enlightenment thought about the 2nd Amendment principles. You'll be presently surprised at just how much they took into consideration future scenarios and weapons.

But keep calling me names, rush Limbaugh, gun nut and posting long winded posts that amount to no argument. I'll be here if any of you decide to bring any valid counter arguments.

What did you quote me in this post for? Did you even read my post? I gave a logical, factual rebuttal to every claim you made and I didn't call you one name. In the last sentence, I said your hyperbolic, hysterical rhetoric about "crip walking on the Constitution" was akin to something you would year from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. If you're going to complain about the level of discourse, you should look at yourself first for starting off the thread with such exaggerated, sensationalized hyperbole.

If you can't refute my argument, just say so or ignore it.

 

[mbewane]

Weapons for self-defense, hunting and militia forming are essential components of a true democracy and enforcing one's rights.

Breh if your "true democracy" means that you need to walk around strapped for protection that democracy has badly lossed.

 

[Nintendough]

Liberals tend to be weak and annoying so what would you expect?

 

[Shogun]

Just bought a new Stag-15 2t

when the zombies come yall on your own

 

[Type Username Here]

What did you quote me in this post for? Did you even read my post? I gave a logical, factual rebuttal to every claim you made and I didn't call you one name. In the last sentence, I said your hyperbolic, hysterical rhetoric about "crip walking on the Constitution" was akin to something you would year from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. If you're going to complain about the level of discourse, you should look at yourself first for starting off the thread with such exaggerated, sensationalized hyperbole.

If you can't refute my argument, just say so or ignore it.

Logical? Factual? How was it factual? What did you cite except your non-informed opinion?

You outright dismissed SCOTUS cases and Founding Father's testimonies/writings and I'm supposed to take your argument serious? What is your basis of opinion using the law and precedent of the law?

You have NO argument except your opinion. It has no basis in any law or legal process, and also contricts the opinions of the men who wrote it.

You'd be better of saying "We should Amend the Constitution" instead of trying to distort the 2nd Amendment to fit your Democratic talking points.

Breh if your "true democracy" means that you need to walk around strapped for protection that democracy has badly lossed.

Most democracies in the world have provisions for armed populaces. Countries way more peaceful than the United States by the way.