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

[mbewane]

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

Which ones?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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.




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

I didn't dismiss what the framers said. Why don't you actually read my entire post instead of the first two sentences? I was explaining to you what the framers wrote and intended. I said I don't care about legal interpretations of later Supreme Court Justices later because you claimed any restrictions on guns is "crip walking on the Constitution" and it's clear what the framers intent was based on their own writings, the documents historical origins rooted in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and the historical context. If you're going to get into SCOTUS rulings, there's obviously plenty you don't agree with on a variety of legal matters. Do you want to defend unlimited blind political money because of Citizens United?

I see you're not even going to address my questions about where should restrictions on weapons begin and end.

Bottom line, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that specifies that restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles is unconstitutional.

Miss me with that "democratic talking points" bullshyt. Your argument is poor and ill-supported with facts. You are a paranoid ex-military gun nut and you have the right to be one, but you should stop trying to mask your fetish for guns as an actual argument of constitutional law. Once again, keeping it real, large social welfare programs you support "crip walk on the Constitution" by stretching the general welfare clause of article 1 a lot more than reasonable restrictions on guns do. So don't pick and choose and pretend to be a strict literalist interpreter of the Constitution only when it suits your biases.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Silencers no.

You're crip walking on the Constitution!

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

But Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America...why isn't the gun deaths going down? Why is it the highest in America?

Do you really need an explanation as to why this makes no sense?

 

[superunknown23]

*adds Type Username Here to the list of idiots to ignore on this forum*

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

*adds Type Username Here to the list of idiots to ignore on this forum*

He ain't an idiot. His mind is just a little fukked from his Iraq tours. He never got all the way right, so he's not very logical on this topic.

 

[Type Username Here]

I didn't dismiss what the framers said.

But you did. In fact, you claimed initially that they mean for the 2nd Amendment to be used only for militia purposes. This is not true.

Why don't you actually read my entire post instead of the first two sentences? I was explaining to you what the framers wrote and intended. I said I don't care about legal interpretations of later Supreme Court Justices later because you claimed any restrictions on guns is "crip walking on the Constitution" and it's clear what the framers intent was based on their own writings, the documents historical origins rooted in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and the historical context.

I read it. Your post brings up opinions, some while valid, exist solely outside the bounds of the law and process of the law. I'm glad you skimmed over the Wiki, but if you dig deeper you'll see exactly what the framers meant.

If you're going to get into SCOTUS rulings, there's obviously plenty you don't agree with on a variety of legal matters. Do you want to defend unlimited blind political money because of Citizens United?

SCOTUS is the highest court in the land. They interpret the constitution. Do I agree with everything they decide? Obviously not. But in THIS case, they were merely affirming the "individual rights" interpretation of the 2nd that had been used since the founding of the Republic and is consistent with the writings of the framers. Trying to argue against this point amounts to pure lying. The SCOTUS finally decided to affirm what everybody else had interpreted the 2nd to be.

As for Citizens United, the court went against and hundred plus years of precedent in various court systems. The overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling. While I find it outrageous, it is still law and I don't agree with states, cities or congress trying override it's constitutionaly without going through the actual process of Amending the Constitution.

Here is something I NEVER hear from gun-control folks: "Let's amend the constitution in regards to the 2nd Amendment." Why is that? Isn't that the legal thing to do?

I see you're not even going to address my questions about where should restrictions on weapons begin and end.

Bottom line, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that specifies that restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles is unconstitutional.

It's because you yourself have begun to pat yourself on the back for an argument that was brought up and defeated 200 years ago. Madison didn't see the need for a 2nd amendment because he erroneously assumed that the government would never have enough weapons or powers to overcome the force of citizens and militia, but he was persuaded otherwise when visionaries argued that the government might have more monies, resources and legal avenues to become better equip ed and armed. Thus they argued for the passage of an amendment that would allow citizens and militias to match the power of government weapons essentially.

If you didn't know already, you CAN own grenade launchers and heavy weapon systems in the United States. The government makes the permits so expensive and rounds so rare to get that most people don't have the means to get it.

Miss me with that "democratic talking points" bullshyt. Your argument is poor and ill-supported with facts. You are a paranoid ex-military gun nut and you have the right to be one, but you should stop trying to mask your fetish for guns as an actual argument of constitutional law. Once again, keeping it real, large social welfare programs you support "crip walk on the Constitution" by stretching the general welfare clause of article 1 a lot more than reasonable restrictions on guns do. So don't pick and choose and pretend to be a strict literalist interpreter of the Constitution only when it suits your biases.

Again, you name-call, trivialize issues I had because of war, and fail to cite ANY law or historical evidence to make your point.

You claim that I'm only arguing for this amendment because I'm pro-gun, and it is completely disingenuous. You and others here know I'm pretty heavy on the Constitutional rule of law, regardless of the Amendment. This is stooping down to Mowgli levels of twisting around facts.

 

[Type Username Here]

You're crip walking on the Constitution!

A silencer has no bearing on military tactics and self-defense. A semi or automatic weapon does.

Do you really need an explanation as to why this makes no sense?

Please.

*adds Type Username Here to the list of idiots to ignore on this forum*

It's easier to ignore facts, evidence, and actual historical writings when someone refutes your entire position. Aren't you a law major?

He ain't an idiot. His mind is just a little fukked from his Iraq tours. He never got all the way right, so he's not very logical on this topic.

Another personal attack on my state of mind because I choose to abide by the aspects of social contract theory, the rule of law and consent of governance.

 

[The Real]

What if the framers were wrong? It certainly wouldn't be the first time, and I think arguing about the actual merits of various interpretations of the 2nd amendment is more productive than defending it based on framer's intent or constitutionality more generally.

For me, the empirical fact that the US has loose gun control laws compared to other developed nations and exponentially more gun violence than the others means that there is indeed a connection between gun control and gun violence that cannot be reduced to culture.

 

[Type Username Here]

What if the framers were wrong? It certainly wouldn't be the first time, and I think arguing about the actual merits of various interpretations of the 2nd amendment is more productive than defending it based on framer's intent or constitutionality more generally.

You can certainly make a case they were wrong. I don't think they were, but there are Constitutional Amendments for a reason. People can certainly bring up the Constitutional Convention to change it. I'd abide by it too.

But why do you think that gun-control advocates NEVER say this?

I support a Constitutional Amendment in regards to Citizens United, not overstepping it's constitutional at local levels.

The 14 Amendment especially was a large correction to the Constitution.

 

[Type Username Here]

For me, the empirical fact that the US has loose gun control laws compared to other developed nations and exponentially more gun violence than the others means that there is indeed a connection between gun control and gun violence that cannot be reduced to culture.

Except this isn't true friend. I have demonstrated this over and over again here and on the older site.

It IS culture.

 

[The Real]

You can certainly make a case they were wrong. I don't think they were, but there are Constitutional Amendments for a reason. People can certainly bring up the Constitutional Convention to change it. I'd abide by it too.

But why do you think that gun-control advocates NEVER say this?

I support a Constitutional Amendment in regards to Citizens United, not overstepping it's constitutional at local levels.

The 14 Amendment especially was a large correction to the Constitution.

Right. I'm not suggesting that an unarmed populace is a good idea in this context, but I would argue that there should be very strict laws with proper enforcement that prevent just anyone from getting a handgun, and most everyone from getting assault rifles, rocket launchers and other weapons meant primarily for militarized settings.

Basically, I think that most ways of arming a populace in times of need wouldn't need to depend on the legality of such an idea, which would only make it easier for people with bad intentions to acquire such weapons in the majority of the time when things like militias are not necessary.

Except this isn't true friend. I have demonstrated this over and over again here and on the older site.

It IS culture.

I don't agree that culture could have the effect of creating such a vast divide in gun violence between us and other developed countries on its own. In general I don't believe that culture has that kind of productive power, or even that what causal power it has can't be traced largely back to the structures in which this culture takes place.

 

[Type Username Here]

Right. I'm not suggesting that an unarmed populace is a good idea in this context, but I would argue that there should be very strict laws with proper enforcement that prevent just anyone from getting a handgun, and most everyone from getting assault rifles, rocket launchers and other weapons meant primarily for militarized settings.

Basically, I think that most ways of arming a populace in times of need wouldn't need to depend on the legality of such an idea, which would only make it easier for people with bad intentions to acquire such weapons in the majority of the time when things like militias are not necessary.

I like the Switzerland model myself, but I disagree with some of their takes. Still not bad.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the highest gun ownership rates in the world and some of the lowest gun violence. Every home is basically given one of these:

and trained.

 

[The Real]

I like the Swizerland model myself

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the highest gun ownership rates in the world and some of the lowest gun violence. Every home is basically given one of these:

and trained.

It's funny, I was just talking to a Swiss person about this a few days ago. He was telling me that it was because the country has mandatory military service that every home has one of these, but he seemed very opposed to the idea himself and also said that some of the politicians over there were trying to change the laws so that people have to turn in their rifles after military service instead of being able to keep them, and that the gun violence over there has been on the rise. I don't know the specifics, though, so I can't really comment on the situation, and he was only one person.

 

[Broke Wave]

I like the Switzerland model myself, but I disagree with some of their takes. Still not bad.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the highest gun ownership rates in the world and some of the lowest gun violence. Every home is basically given one of these:

and trained.

So you think everybody should be forced to be trained in the military like in Switzerland

Sounds kid of oppressive to me, friend.

Also, Switzerland has like 8 million people, and is literally the RICHEST country on earth


What a foolish comparison