Chris Matthews: Gun Control Speech Coming Soon
-
Well no way to prove it but I'd bet that if there were a vote to go with, say, Englands gun laws it would not be unanimous.
Same if it got to the SC.
But who knows.
And yes I think the restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
That doesn't mean I disagree.
It just means the amendment is outdated like it or not.
WSS
I disagree on both points. I don't think the essential rights in the amendment are "outdated." Nor do I think restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. You also have the ability to put restrictions on that right as long as you preserve the essential right.
Restricting magazine size, or the types of weaponry they can own, does not deny them the right to bear arms - in other words, a guy with a gun with a 10-round clip and a guy with a gun with a 30-round clip clearly both have the right to keep and bear arms. If you tell the second guy he can't have a clip that size you haven't taken away his right to be armed.
Just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and yet you haven't taken away that man's right to free speech.
I disagree on both points. I don't think the essential rights in the amendment are "outdated." Nor do I think restrictions are against the spirit of the amendment.
Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. You also have the ability to put restrictions on that right as long as you preserve the essential right.
Restricting magazine size, or the types of weaponry they can own, does not deny them the right to bear arms - in other words, a guy with a gun with a 10-round clip and a guy with a gun with a 30-round clip clearly both have the right to keep and bear arms. If you tell the second guy he can't have a clip that size you haven't taken away his right to be armed.
Just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and yet you haven't taken away that man's right to free speech.
So limiting the clip to one round no larger than .18 would be perfectly constitutional?
So why do you think the amendment was written Heck?
(I bet you know)
WSS
-
I don't think you're the man to discuss what "reasonable restrictions" would mean. You'd have to be able to make distinctions, and deal in something other than absolutes.
As for the 2nd Amendment, they wrote it for lots of reasons. You can go back and read all of the arguments for it if you like. Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
That idea is not "outdated." The "well-regulated militia" stuff may be, but no one uses those arguments in 2nd amendment cases anymore anyway.
-
I don't think you're the man to discuss what "reasonable restrictions" would mean. You'd have to be able to make distinctions, and deal in something other than absolutes.
As for the 2nd Amendment, they wrote it for lots of reasons. You can go back and read all of the arguments for it if you like. Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
That idea is not "outdated." The "well-regulated militia" stuff may be, but no one uses those arguments in 2nd amendment cases anymore anyway.
Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
You're spinning like a top.
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again.
That means a Brown Boss or Charleville, state of the art weapons, were par for the course.Someone who argued that Americans in 1779 only be allowed to carry firearms with a tiny fraction of the power of the kings woulda benn tossed in the harbor.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Again, Cal, you're not understanding what I'm writing. No one is suggesting that a law like this would stop all gun crimes. Don't be ridiculous and hysterical.
Anyone else?
**************************************
Steve is exactly right. Actually all of us are, Heck - except you.
You are the "whirling dervish" of the board. Show me where I ever said that "a law like this would stop all gun crimes".
Nothin. You got nothin, but a desperate attempt to rewrite my position, so you can keep acting like you
have the upper hand.
The rationalization that "the murderer used a big clip, so we have to get rid of big clips"
is BOGUS. That is the whole you are circle dancing around.
THAT is why I responded with the info on the gun that killed Bobby Kennedy. Eight shots in a revolver.
Answer that, with regard to your goofy rationalization about magazine sizes.
I dare ya to man up and answer it. There isn't any gun control that will stop all gun crimes, the rest of us know that.
But you don't seem to know that.
Making magazine sizes smaller doesn't solve anything. Banning all guns entirely doesn't eliminate criminals freely
using illegal guns on a defenseless populace.
So, the only reason that people like you support more gun regulation, like restricting magazine sizes to even smaller seem
to be only for one, maybe two reasons:
1. You don't really care that passing another gun control law will be futile in any real world. But, you have ulterior
motives to fight the fight. Like "nudging" for more and more control to the direction of finally, openly violating the 2nd
Amendment.
2. You are a dimwitted, ignorant jackwagon who still gets stoned while listening to hard rock, and you worship
the Lennon song "Imagine", and it makes you feel important to stand against the status quo, especially when
other people like their guns, but you don't like them, and you dream of being Dictator of the World, or at least,
his butler.
Pick one, Heck. Or pick both if they apply. But please stop spinning around subjects, like a blade of grass in a tornado.
I'll bet you will end up making the rest of us dizzy.
-
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again. Steve
***********************************
Exactly. So did the Nazi's.
And on and on. The left can only dream of that happening here.
-
Mainly, though, it's because they believed that not only does the government have a right to self-defense, but citizens do as well.
You're spinning like a top.
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again.
That means a Brown Boss or Charleville, state of the art weapons, were par for the course.Someone who argued that Americans in 1779 only be allowed to carry firearms with a tiny fraction of the power of the kings woulda benn tossed in the harbor.
WSS
You're spinning like a top.
The Brits confiscated colonists weapons so as to make them less able to revolt.
The framers were well aware that situation might arise again.
That means a Brown Boss or Charleville, state of the art weapons, were par for the course.Someone who argued that Americans in 1779 only be allowed to carry firearms with a tiny fraction of the power of the kings woulda benn tossed in the harbor.
WSS
It's spinning to suggest that the Framers believed in an individual right to self-defense? Holy moly. You have a one sentence answer to everything, don't you?
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government."
That's John Adams debating ratification of the 2nd Amendment. That's him saying, "Citizens should have guns for self-defense, but the use of arms beyond that should only be in the service of the state or else you'll invite total lawlessness." He's essentially saying all I want people to have guns for is self-defense. All the other guns he wants in the service of the police and the army.
You really don't want to go down this path. I know you're already wedded to your "it's out of date" notion, but the notion of individual self-defense is not outdated by time.
Or maybe you can tell me what is "outdated" about what Adams is saying here?
-
Simple question, Steve: do you believe there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment?
-
Leg, this is really bush league stuff. Here's the argument you're making:
Me: Since it's dangerous, we could penalize grabbing the facemask, and that should reduce the incidence of facemask grabbing.
You: That's not going to eliminate facemask grabbing! People always have and always will grab the facemask. Why bother? I saw a facemask penalty in the Steelers game, the Ravens game, the Dolphins game. I'd rather the stadiums have more parking.
Again, you're arguing extremes here. Public policy is rarely, if ever, a question of "eradicating" a problem. You manage problems. Take your drug example: we "control" substances. We don't imagine that we're going to eliminate them.
Same thing here. You're simply trying to find Constitutional ways to manage gun violence in America. And if you're so unconcerned with the idea that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (which, of course, isn't true) then why wouldn't you want to have rules in place that penalize them for when they're caught with things we don't want them to have?
In order to make a case for having a extended magazine clip like Loughner had you'd have to make the case for why that's something law-abiding citizens need and use for their personal protection or hunting, not throw your hands up and say "well, criminals get whatever they want, so what's the point?" So what's the rationale for having such a clip? Maybe there is one. So far I've only heard that it forces you to reload at firing ranges more often. That seems like an acceptable, common sense trade off to me.
And please try and get that when I'm talking about Loughner types with guns I'm not referring that specific incident, but the types of incidents law enforcement encounters every day. And try to get that I'm not suggesting - and you shouldn't be inferring - that a cop would have some sort of ESP power and would be able to divine whether or not a person had an illegal gun in their car, then pull them over. Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about the types of "plain view" searches that cops do every time they pull someone over, which often lead to full searches. I'm talking about stuff that cops already do, and have done for years.
Honestly.
Leg, this is really bush league stuff. Here's the argument you're making:
Me: Since it's dangerous, we could penalize grabbing the facemask, and that should reduce the incidence of facemask grabbing.
You: That's not going to eliminate facemask grabbing! People always have and always will grab the facemask. Why bother? I saw a facemask penalty in the Steelers game, the Ravens game, the Dolphins game. I'd rather the stadiums have more parking.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Go back & read what you wrote. You're saying eliminate the facemask. And I'm the one arguing extremes? And, not surprisingly, you've misread my argument. I'm saying that if you eliminate the facemask, they'll only grab the nose. Or eyesocket. I'm looking for a better tackler, not more parking spaces. Try and avoid the platitudes.
Again, you're arguing extremes here. Public policy is rarely, if ever, a question of "eradicating" a problem. You manage problems. Take your drug example: we "control" substances. We don't imagine that we're going to eliminate them.
18th Amendment. AgainSame thing here. You're simply trying to find Constitutional ways to manage gun violence in America. And if you're so unconcerned with the idea that criminals can get their hands on anything they want (which, of course, isn't true) then why wouldn't you want to have rules in place that penalize them for when they're caught with things we don't want them to have?
Those rules are there. You're arguing over a marginal difference in body count.In order to make a case for having a extended magazine clip like Loughner had you'd have to make the case for why that's something law-abiding citizens need and use for their personal protection or hunting, not throw your hands up and say "well, criminals get whatever they want, so what's the point?" So what's the rationale for having such a clip? Maybe there is one. So far I've only heard that it forces you to reload at firing ranges more often. That seems like an acceptable, common sense trade off to me.
Self-Defense exactly the case I'm making. If Jared's going to use one (and he will regardless of this utopia you've envisioned), I'd like him to have to reload before I have to.And please try and get that when I'm talking about Loughner types with guns I'm not referring that specific incident, but the types of incidents law enforcement encounters every day. And try to get that I'm not suggesting - and you shouldn't be inferring - that a cop would have some sort of ESP power and would be able to divine whether or not a person had an illegal gun in their car, then pull them over. Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about the types of "plain view" searches that cops do every time they pull someone over, which often lead to full searches. I'm talking about stuff that cops already do, and have done for years.
Honestly.
I'm hardly inferring any of that. I'm saying that the Loughner's, McVeigh's etc, aren't exactly speeding with a busted tail-light on their way to "the scene." Those buffoons are reserved for COPS & Jerry Springer.
-
Leg, this is really going nowhere. I still can't tell by what you wrote that you understand any of the points I'm making. You're just repeating the same stuff you said before, which I don't think is very convincing.
For instance, I really don't think saying "18th amendment" over and over is the slam dunk you think it is. I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. All that would mean is that making things illegal, no matter if it's booze or gun clips or drunk driving, doesn't have any effect on anything, so there's no point. This is a ridiculous argument to make. The whole point is to identify behavior that we want to reduce the incidence of and punish it accordingly. Ex: drunk driving is illegal, but people still drink and drive. We don't imagine drunk driving is going to stop when we make it illegal, so you wouldn't argue with someone who wants to make drunk driving illegal by saying, "DRUNK DRIVING WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." Well, no shit. So let's stop making that argument, especially in caps. I want to like you.
Can you agree that the threat of penalty reduces the incidence of drunk driving, and that police can pull over drunk drivers and arrest them and charge them before they have a chance to cause hard to someone else, and themselves? This is all we're talking about here. Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used.
If law abiding citizens have no real use for extended clips since they're hunters and sportsmen and use guns for protection, than this law would overwhelmingly punish people who aren't law-abiding.
And I'll try the football metaphor one more time. I'm not saying "eliminate the facemask", as you contend. I'm saying make the facemask illegal, since the facemask - while certainly a way to tackle someone - isn't the type of tackling we want in our game because it poses needless risk to the players. There are plenty of other ways to tackle people, within the rules, and we accept a certain amount of risk when we play the game. However, we've decided to not allow helmet to helmet, facemasks, or horse collars. Those will be penalized.
And speaking of fantasies, can you make an argument for why law-abiding citizens would need extended magazines? I'm not sure I'm convinced by your dream of being able to play John McClane at an unfolding crime scene. That would mean your argument is: whatever type of weapon or ammo anyone could obtain, I want to be able to obtain an equal or greater amount in the event we have to throw down.
This seems a little silly to me, but at least it's finally an argument for leaving the law the way it is. Do you have any others, or is that it?
PS - Most criminals are buffoons and lowlifes. Buffoons and lowlifes can do great damage. Catching them is important too.
-
Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used. Heck
**********************************
The idea that citizens don't need guns as a militia - I'm fine with that...
unless hell freezes over, and a leftist Obamao type declares unwarranted permanent martial law,
disbands our military and police forces, Congress and the Supreme Court, and goes with his own rent-a-military from another country.
Now, that's ridiculous. But to assume it couldn't happen, is bit like "Why England Slept".
We agreed on machine guns. But the incessant rambling about "well, let's outlaw er.... big clips". Then you can simply
redefine what clip is acceptable and legal... to .. zero, later.
And "Let's just outlaw those rifles with several shots in the cylinder below the barrel"... which outlaws a lot of bb guns, even.
And "Let's just outlaw all semi-auto pistols and handguns"... which goes further and further to the goal of
dismantling the 2 Amendment rights of every American citizen, bit by bit.
And "Let's ban revolvers because so and so..." is just another block that helps make up the barrier to any gun ownership.
And "oh, don't be silly, nobody thinks that" doesn't fly one thousand of an inch across the ground before crashing...
It's far too easily proven that totally banning guns in the absolute intent of many on the left.
-
Leg, this is really going nowhere. I still can't tell by what you wrote that you understand any of the points I'm making. You're just repeating the same stuff you said before, which I don't think is very convincing.
For instance, I really don't think saying "18th amendment" over and over is the slam dunk you think it is. I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. All that would mean is that making things illegal, no matter if it's booze or gun clips or drunk driving, doesn't have any effect on anything, so there's no point. This is a ridiculous argument to make. The whole point is to identify behavior that we want to reduce the incidence of and punish it accordingly. Ex: drunk driving is illegal, but people still drink and drive. We don't imagine drunk driving is going to stop when we make it illegal, so you wouldn't argue with someone who wants to make drunk driving illegal by saying, "DRUNK DRIVING WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." Well, no shit. So let's stop making that argument, especially in caps. I want to like you.
Can you agree that the threat of penalty reduces the incidence of drunk driving, and that police can pull over drunk drivers and arrest them and charge them before they have a chance to cause hard to someone else, and themselves? This is all we're talking about here. Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used.
If law abiding citizens have no real use for extended clips since they're hunters and sportsmen and use guns for protection, than this law would overwhelmingly punish people who aren't law-abiding.
And I'll try the football metaphor one more time. I'm not saying "eliminate the facemask", as you contend. I'm saying make the facemask illegal, since the facemask - while certainly a way to tackle someone - isn't the type of tackling we want in our game because it poses needless risk to the players. There are plenty of other ways to tackle people, within the rules, and we accept a certain amount of risk when we play the game. However, we've decided to not allow helmet to helmet, facemasks, or horse collars. Those will be penalized.
And speaking of fantasies, can you make an argument for why law-abiding citizens would need extended magazines? I'm not sure I'm convinced by your dream of being able to play John McClane at an unfolding crime scene. That would mean your argument is: whatever type of weapon or ammo anyone could obtain, I want to be able to obtain an equal or greater amount in the event we have to throw down.
This seems a little silly to me, but at least it's finally an argument for leaving the law the way it is. Do you have any others, or is that it?
PS - Most criminals are buffoons and lowlifes. Buffoons and lowlifes can do great damage. Catching them is important too.
Leg, this is really going nowhere. I still can't tell by what you wrote that you understand any of the points I'm making. You're just repeating the same stuff you said before, which I don't think is very convincing.
For instance, I really don't think saying "18th amendment" over and over is the slam dunk you think it is. I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. All that would mean is that making things illegal, no matter if it's booze or gun clips or drunk driving, doesn't have any effect on anything, so there's no point. This is a ridiculous argument to make. The whole point is to identify behavior that we want to reduce the incidence of and punish it accordingly. Ex: drunk driving is illegal, but people still drink and drive. We don't imagine drunk driving is going to stop when we make it illegal, so you wouldn't argue with someone who wants to make drunk driving illegal by saying, "DRUNK DRIVING WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." Well, no shit. So let's stop making that argument, especially in caps. I want to like you.
oh. my. god. You're right, this is going nowhere. I have yet to make the claim that criminalizing various things don't have ANY effect. I've repeated (and you've repeatedly missed) that they don't have the intended effect. It's often the opposite effect. Which is why I've repeated the 18th amendment, tossed in some Columbine and so on. Please, come down from the tower - it's not as bad as you think.
Also comparing the gun/weapons ban argument to drunk driving is apples and oranges. Drunk drivers are rarely looking to commit an additional crime while drunk driving. The same can't be said for those looking to commit murder while using an illegal weapon/magazine. Also there's the cost/benefit rationalization of each of these that aren't even in the same ballpark.
Can you agree that the threat of penalty reduces the incidence of drunk driving, and that police can pull over drunk drivers and arrest them and charge them before they have a chance to cause hard to someone else, and themselves? This is all we're talking about here. Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used.
There aren't repeat DUI offenders? Shocking.
As to the part I bolded, that's some fairly circular logic, no? Being able to prosecute a crime only happens after the crime - unless we're in that shitty Tom Cruise movie. I kind of see where you're going with this point, but I'm saying if somebody does something bad, with something illegal, the "bad" consequence has already happened. If someone does something that isn't bad with something illegal (shooting 30 holes in a paint can vs. 20) is that really a problem? I say no. The same argument can be made for decriminalizing drugs, etc. If a tree falls in the woods, with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If law abiding citizens have no real use for extended clips since they're hunters and sportsmen and use guns for protection, than this law would overwhelmingly punish people who aren't law-abiding.
Assuming they're caught yes. 9 times out of 10, it's already after the problem (Loughner, et. al)And I'll try the football metaphor one more time. I'm not saying "eliminate the facemask", as you contend. I'm saying make the facemask illegal, since the facemask - while certainly a way to tackle someone - isn't the type of tackling we want in our game because it poses needless risk to the players. There are plenty of other ways to tackle people, within the rules, and we accept a certain amount of risk when we play the game. However, we've decided to not allow helmet to helmet, facemasks, or horse collars. Those will be penalized.
I meant "facemask" as in the structure. Which you are seeking to eliminate. Which is why I followed with the "removal of the facemask will result in nose/eyesocket tackling." (Unintended consequence - seeing a pattern yet?)
And speaking of fantasies, can you make an argument for why law-abiding citizens would need extended magazines? I'm not sure I'm convinced by your dream of being able to play John McClane at an unfolding crime scene. That would mean your argument is: whatever type of weapon or ammo anyone could obtain, I want to be able to obtain an equal or greater amount in the event we have to throw down.
Magazine size is inconsequential for me personally. I only need the 1 in the chamber.But to address your patronization, that is the foundation of the 2nd Amendment. Laugh it up.
This seems a little silly to me, but at least it's finally an argument for leaving the law the way it is. Do you have any others, or is that it?
Of course it does.
PS - Most criminals are buffoons and lowlifes. Buffoons and lowlifes can do great damage. Catching them is important too.
That takes more than shuffling "the list."
-
Simple question, Steve: do you believe there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment?
Simple question, Steve: do you believe there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment?
Though I don't think it's specific lets play.
OK
I'll say yes!!!!
From whom would I need to protect myself?
Bears?
Indians?
Highwaymen?
British resurgents?
The US government run amuck?
Now what kind of weapons might these dangerous predators have?
Now in order to defend myself shoudn't I have something equal?
Sure I should Heck. And in those days I could.
But that was written in a day when there were no bazookas.
Thgat was a time when six submachine guns would have given the king a quick victory.
Today those situations are archaic.
WSS
-
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
-
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
Yep.
Well you're wrong only because you won't address the point Heck.
Parts are relevant and parts aren't?
Great.
You know that's bullshit and I don't have any doubt you'll come up with another snow job.
If you think the founders had a clue about what it'd be like in century 21, you're delusional.
Lets look to the Bible instead.
WSS
-
Leg, let's try this: I keep making the case that you can reduce the incidence of gun crime, prosecute people more effectively, and reduce gun violence at the margins, which saves lives.
Now you seem to be making the case that since it won't stop every crime, or save every life, that it's not worth doing. Take your numbers: you said nine out of ten times it would still happen. To me, a 10% reduction in gun crimes sounds fantastic. I wouldn't imagine we'd get close to that, though it would be really hard to quantify because most of it would be about putting people in jail for illegal possession of a firearm, and the crimes they don't get to commit while in prison. But if you could show that additional gun laws, while preserving 2nd Amendment rights, reduced gun crimes by even 5%, I'd think that's fantastic. That would mean hundreds of lives saved.
In other words, you're saying reducing gun crime rates is not worth doing. Somehow, you even seem to making the case that banning these clips wouldn't do anything, and even may increase gun crimes somehow. That's your "18 Amendment" argument, which I still don't think much of.
As for this, let me try one more time: "Being able to prosecute a crime only happens after the crime - unless we're in that shitty Tom Cruise movie."
Once again, you're missing the obvious stuff here - guns found in searches, possession laws that could trigger parole violations and put people back in jail, etc.
Richmond had a law years ago where the illegal possession of a firearm was an automatic five year sentence. Yes, they used gun laws to take people who have guns illegally off the streets.
This would be no different. If you found someone with these clips, you could prosecute them for having them. You could take dangerous people off of the streets before they do anything. Which is why I made the drunk driving analogy - we arrest a lot of people who are swerving in traffic. They haven't hurt anyone yet, but we know they've got the ability to.
Spielberg's got nothing to do with it.
-
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
Yep.
Well you're wrong only because you won't address the point Heck.
Parts are relevant and parts aren't?
Great.
You know that's bullshit and I don't have any doubt you'll come up with another snow job.
If you think the founders had a clue about what it'd be like in century 21, you're delusional.
Lets look to the Bible instead.
WSS
Well you're wrong only because you won't address the point Heck.
Parts are relevant and parts aren't?
Great.
You know that's bullshit and I don't have any doubt you'll come up with another snow job.
If you think the founders had a clue about what it'd be like in century 21, you're delusional.
Lets look to the Bible instead.
WSS
Oh, God. I don't know that's bullshit; I know the exact opposite. And I've got Supreme Court cases that back me up, and think you're full of shit.
I really love that tactic - "I know that you don't believe what you just wrote!" Except that I do believe it. Because it's true.
If you understand that there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment - which there is - than self-defense is a right and a concept that doesn't fade over time, much like free speech or freedom of assembly.
Americans have a right to individual self-defense in the Constitution. The fact that Jefferson couldn't have imagined heat-seeking missiles and the internet is immaterial.
-
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
-
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
No Heck.
I don't expect a straight answer.
That amendment was necessary because the Brits had been confiscating colonists guns.
They rightly feared an uprising.
Flint and Firelocks were state of the art then.
And that's what they were allowed to have.
Spin it anyway you like.
WSS
-
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
No Heck.
I don't expect a straight answer.
That amendment was necessary because the Brits had been confiscating colonists guns.
They rightly feared an uprising.
Flint and Firelocks were state of the art then.
And that's what they were allowed to have.
Spin it anyway you like.
WSS
No Heck.
I don't expect a straight answer.
That amendment was necessary because the Brits had been confiscating colonists guns.
They rightly feared an uprising.
Flint and Firelocks were state of the art then.
And that's what they were allowed to have.
Spin it anyway you like.
WSS
Ah, the alternate reality. Where accepted (and centuries old) legal doctrine is "spin" and stuff you make up in your head is the truth.
You really seem to understand this stuff really well. The Constitution didn't establish the unalienable rights and privileges of citizenship, it was only written to deal with the immediate threat of the British.
Really, Steve? I think you've lost this one. You may not understand that you've lost, but you have.
The amendment doesn't say "Until the threat of a British uprising has been quelled, you can keep and bear arms." It doesn't say, "As long as gun technology stays the same in perpetuity, you can have guns." It says, "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."
There's a right to self-defense in there. Maybe you can't see it, but that's not that important.
-
Is the 1st Amendment outdated because the Framers could have never imagined television? The internet? YouTube?
Is it outdated because the Framers specifically wanted people to be able to speak out against the British?
Or is it about a right, a concept, that is given to the American people and can't be taken away?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login