Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirQuiamus]

Ah yes, the super important, well established, additional test of the "Is you using right good?" standard. That is a crucial component of constitutional law. Any rights that is not being used sufficiently good may be restricted beyond strict scrutiny standards, because, regardless of their status in the Constitution, they are obviously not important. Be sure to take note protesters, gun owners, and privacy advocates.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there, but let me tell you this: No-one is going to grab your AR-15, and you're entitled to defend yourself from authoritarian oppression if that oppression shows up on your doorstep. You have the right to legally amass a personal arsenal fit for a Pashtun warlord, but you also have the absolute, unavoidable responsibility to ensure that not a single innocent is hurt by your personal weaponry, regardless of who is pulling the trigger. As a soldier you should bally well understand that neglecting your responsibilites implies forfeiting your rights, and people who cannot handle the responsibility of owning a gun should have no right to own one.

EDIT: Gorillion ninjas.

[smjjames]

I thought the third amendment only applied to foriegn soldiers?

Soldiers are generally either housed in on-base barracks or their own house/apartment these days, no need to force someone else to house them.

[Reelya]

Also the first amendment protects free speech, petition, and "religion, press, assembly". So, the "individual" right of assembly? Assembly by definition means to assemble, meaning a collective group of people meeting for some purpose. All those things are basically things done as collective groups. So it's just retarded nonsense to say the constitution hasd nothing to say about groups of people.

[smjjames]

Also the first amendment protects free speech and "religion, press, assembly, and petition". All those things are basically things done as collective groups. So it's just retarded nonsense to say the constitution says nothing about groups of people.

A petition does require at least one person to start it, so, it's about the freedom to make one.

Edit: Oh I see you edited the petition one. Also, the religion part does count for the individual.

[Reelya]

Yeah I edited that out with a better argument.

I can't help thinking someone who only cares about their personal right to have a gun, doesn't give a shit if other people get massacred and hates all forms of collective society is a major misanthrope. Go live on some island somewhere. Oh, life's too hard to live on a rocky island by yourself? Maybe that's because of all the benefits living in a society provides ... which of course the obvious answer is that you owe nothing to society because you made it all on your own.

[Playergamer]

swell argument reelya.

you know what else is a great argument?

"if you don't like america, you can just get the hell out."

you're allowed to try to make your society better, in your opinion, or at least try to convince people. argument shouldnt equal exile.

[Reelya]

But he did make the point that everything involving more than one person is basically evil, by making "collective" a swear word, regardless of what it's applied to.

[Strife26]

Calling bullshit. Serious attempts at gun restriction, especially on the national scale, are as modern of a development as serious pro-gun advocacy. That's like saying that electronic privacy concerns don't matter because no one gave a fuck before electronic privacy was getting infringed.

Ah yes, the super important, well established, additional test of the "Is you using right good?" standard. That is a crucial component of constitutional law. Any rights that is not being used sufficiently good may be restricted beyond strict scrutiny standards, because, regardless of their status in the Constitution, they are obviously not important. Be sure to take note protesters, gun owners, and privacy advocates.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there, but let me tell you this: No-one is going to grab your AR-15, and you're entitled to defend yourself from authoritarian oppression if that oppression shows up on your doorstep. You have the right to legally amass a personal arsenal fit for a Pashtun warlord, but you also have the absolute, unavoidable responsibility to ensure that not a single innocent is hurt by your personal weaponry, regardless of who is pulling the trigger. As a soldier you should bally well understand that neglecting your responsibilites implies forfeiting your rights, and people who cannot handle the responsibility of owning a gun should have no right to own one.

EDIT: Gorillion ninjas.

Yes. Within the goddamn fucking strict scrutiny test. Obviously, the government is unable to take my rifle away. Doing so on any kind of scale (which is the realm of moderate quality thrillers, not the real world) would result in justifiable Civil War. This provides no protection to people who have tried, do try, and continue to try to marginalize, complicate, and criminalize gun ownership. My Pashtun warlord arsenal is reasonably safe, but the ability for me to start actually working on it five years from now is in question. The ability of my hypothetical children and children to build that stockpile if they wish is the actual question that gets discussed here. Once given away, Rights don't get taken back without blood.



Assembly is an individual right in the sense that you may not have a government mandated "assembly group" and then claim that this fulfills  the requirement. It is not a collective right that some people can assemble, it is my individual right that I and a group of other individuals may peacefully assemble as we choose (once again subject to narrow-least restrictive modifications if made for a compelling government interest)

[smjjames]

Lets not get too nasty here guys, we all have our differences in opinion and we can still argue without getting nasty.

Although I think playergamer was just using a rhetorical example and not trying to be nasty, not sure.

[Playergamer]

willful misinterpretation.

lemme clarify. it is one of the greatest goddamn plagues on reasonable debate that willful misinterpretstion exists. if your opponent is being unclear, get them to clarify so you can attack their true argument. don't use lack of clarity as a weapon.

bye now, probably be back.

[smjjames]

willful misinterpretation. now if you'll excuse me, i'll go back to lurk-supporting strife.

Also, it's the internet, sarcasm is difficult to discern sometimes.

If it was a misinterpretation, okay, then I apologize, I just wanted to nip any budding firestorm in the bud and say 'whoa, lets cool down our fires a little'.

willful misinterpretation.

lemme clarify. it is one of the greatest goddamn plagues on reasonable debate that willful misinterpretstion exists. if your opponent is being unclear, get them to clarify so you can attack their true argument. don't use lack of clarity as a weapon.

bye now, probably be back.

Look, the problem is that tone doesn't flow accross the electronic medium that is the internet very well. It was a misinterpretation okay, but I didn't know what your tone was, honestly. Also, the origional post was actually mainly at playergamer, not Reelya or strife/

[Willfor]

It's a good thing black people are allowed to carry weapons without getting shot. Their civil liberties are completely respected.

If only they could vote in Alabama too.

[Playergamer]

er. i wasn't talking to you smj. you cool. I was talking about reelya willfully misinterpreting strife's argument. don't worry 'bout it.

[smjjames]

er. i wasn't talking to you smj. you cool. I was talking about reelya willfully misinterpreting strife's argument. don't worry 'bout it.

Oh, looked like that was at me, sorry.

[SirQuiamus]

The ability of my hypothetical children and children to build that stockpile if they wish is the actual question that gets discussed here. Once given away, Rights don't get taken back without blood.

Again, no-one is taking away your rights unless you're a dangerous idiot who cannot handle the responsibility of gun ownership.

I know that You are a well-trained, well-adjusted, and responsible gun owner, and Your hypothetical children will undoubtedly be well-trained, well-adjusted, and responsible gun owners too, but that horrible little shit who shot people in Roseburg was not a responsible gun owner.