Print

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

[lumin]

the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal government

Sorry I must have missed that line in the 2nd amendment, or is that Aquizzar's amendment?

Do you even know how federal law works, or do you just like to throw out whatever inflammatory statement you think will back you up?  Believe it or not, I'm the one being the strict constructionist here.  Although there is a certain argument to be made that the 14th Amendment could carry the 2nd down to the state level, that was not what the majority opinion was based on.  It was based purely on the juvenile notion that because the language of the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from banning firearms (and it does anyway), then nobody anywhere can be allowed to.  Which is complete bullcrap.

That's exactly what the 2nd Amendment says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..  It doesn't say "except by the city of Chicago", or "except by the state of Illinois", it is a blanket statement for all Americans everywhere.  Who are the "people"?  Call me crazy, but I would assume it's talking about We the People of the United States.

I honestly don't know how you could misinterpret that or label people as "juvenile" for seeing it that way.

[KaelGotDwarves]

So I'm all for a gun ban in chicago.

I still remember 3 years ago or so, first day they had nice weather following winter and in that one day 30 people got shot and stabbed.

Thank goodness I'm out of that shithole.

In the city where handguns were banned? That doesn't really help your case, you know.

It does, because if guns were readily available in the city, every street punk and wannabe-gangsta would have one.

People talk about "defending yourself" with guns, but that really only works in (let's face it) civilized areas like Utah/Arizona that aren't clusterfucked metropolis shitholes like detroit, chicago, oakland -it works when people aren't shooting everywhere and you don't have to be worried about taking a walk and being shot in the back just for the lulz.

Lumin: Well regulated militia. Once again, not any idiot with guns.

[alway]

To be honest, the 2nd amendment needs revamping. It originated in an era when the gun was the equalizer; troops with guns were essentially what made up a military. Guns also took long enough to reload that one couldn't go into town, kill everyone, and live to tell the tale. Nowadays, militaries are highly mechanized and there is absolutely no way to counter them without multi-million dollar machines of your own. However, even small arms are able to kill more or less with impunity in a crowd of unarmed citizens. So unlike the low-risk, high threat to government weapons of old, today's guns are a high-risk to unarmed civilians and low threat to governments.

For this, I take a page from Ben.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The right would not be taken because people were afraid of being killed.

I never said it should be taken away, I said it should be revamped. As in, putting it back in its original position of potentially dangerous to government and relatively non-dangerous for citizens. How that would be done, I haven't the foggiest.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Are you saying the guy couldnt easily have killed him with a bow, crossbow, explosive, knife or poison?

Actually that was the most retarded thing I've heard today, I hope I've been trolled.

Sorry, I missed this. Look up the history and you'll have your answer.

A bunch of street thugs or hicks with guns are not a "well regulated militia".

Best you review your history.

With a knife, you can run or defend yourself. Guns just lead to shootouts in the streets. Or things like 7 year old girls getting shot in the face during drive bys

I've seen "knife fights" spontaneously break out in streets a lot more often than gun fights. Well, bars actually, but close enough.

Once again, that applies to the federal government alone under any statute definition of the law.  Only by way of using the 14th Amendment to show that states must provide the same legal protections as the federal constitution could that argument work, and that is not what happened in this case, nor has it ever been made that way.  It could, but it didn't, so the definition that the 2nd Amendment applies to federal law alone should still stand.  But instead, we have justices finding cases based on some gradeschool notion of what they think the "Founders" intended, even though the "Founders" refused the press to record their hearings in drafting the Constitution precisely to keep people from doing that.

Actually, no. The 10th amendment grants that powers reserved by the US constitution cannot be abridged by the states. The fourteenth amendment was required because of the wording of other amendments specifies Congress. The second amendment can be granted the protections of the fourteenth too, but it doesn't need it due to the fact it is covered by the 10th.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is the federal government's job to ensure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This means if a fapping dog in Canada was infringing the rights of a person in the United States, it would be the federal government's job to stop it.

I never said it should be taken away, I said it should be revamped. As in, putting it back in its original position of potentially dangerous to government and relatively non-dangerous for citizens. How that would be done, I haven't the foggiest.

Forbid pistols but allow rocket launchers

[Jreengus]

Are you saying the guy couldnt easily have killed him with a bow, crossbow, explosive, knife or poison?

Actually that was the most retarded thing I've heard today, I hope I've been trolled.

Sorry, I missed this. Look up the history and you'll have your answer.

Because bows can't be used immediately after eating a sandwich?

[KaelGotDwarves]

A bunch of street thugs or hicks with guns are not a "well regulated militia".

Best you review your history.

That worked 200+ years ago, when all guns took over half a minute to reload and you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with them at 200 yards. I maintain that a "well regulated militia", in our time, would be the police, or the National Guard. Want the right to use a gun? Learn to use it properly protecting your people.

With a knife, you can run or defend yourself. Guns just lead to shootouts in the streets. Or things like 7 year old girls getting shot in the face during drive bys

I've seen "knife fights" spontaneously break out in streets a lot more often than gun fights. Well, bars actually, but close enough.

Which tend to lead to less deaths and less random deaths than guns. People bitch about violent crime statistics in England (because they're higher than here/more are reported) but the honest truth is, less % of people involved in violent crimes die there - they just get roughed up.

Imagine if those guys pulled out a gun and started drunkenly shooting everywhere instead of waving knives around.

[Huesoo]

Are you saying the guy couldnt easily have killed him with a bow, crossbow, explosive, knife or poison?

Actually that was the most retarded thing I've heard today, I hope I've been trolled.

Sorry, I missed this. Look up the history and you'll have your answer.

I did they could have easily done it with those weapons.

[lumin]

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.

If the above statement was converted into SQL, choose the correct answer:

#----COMMENTS-----#
#A WELL REGULATED MILITIA IS NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
#SO WE MUST ENSURE OUR FIRST DATA SAMPLE CONTAINS THE ENTIRE POPULATION
#----COMMENTS-----#

A) SELECT * FROM `people` WHERE state_guns_banned != true AND gun_type != "assault weapon" AND carry_permit = "open"

B)  SELECT * FROM `people`

I think it's pretty obvious which is the correct answer here.  There is nothing in the original statement that grants any power to a state or restricts any rights from any people to bear arms whenever they want, however they want, and which arms they want to bear.  It doesn't filter, discriminate, or give exceptions at any time or at any place for We the People of the United States.

No matter how hard it is argued, no matter how eloquently it is debated, facts are facts.  True is universally true and false is universally false.

[Kogan Loloklam]

That worked 200+ years ago, when all guns took over half a minute to reload and you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with them at 200 yards. I maintain that a "well regulated militia", in our time, would be the National Guard.

The national guard is not a militia. Well, it is, but only in the exact same way the US Federal military is a militia.
A bunch of hicks with guns is pretty much the definition of any militia that has ever done anything useful. This is as true when things were as you said as nowadays. You just assume that because the US is stable now it will always be true. History teaches a different lesson. Look outside the borders of the USA for examples.

Which tend to lead to less deaths and less random deaths than guns. People bitch about violent crime statistics in England but the honest truth is, less % of people die there.

I think it's all subjective, and not necessarily due to lack of guns. Remember that in the UK there are people that have a RIGHT to say they are better than others. It makes a difference when you can knock someone on their ass for such a statement. Living in a place where people have a right to carry handguns already, I'd say that when people can wave guns in the air drunks are less likely to take them to bars, because EVERYONE has one. If you start to shoot at people, it tends to get you shot. There is also a surprising lack of knives flashing around as well. Contrast that with the few places I've gone where this wasn't true. Knives tended to show up at every bar fight I went to...

Did you even look at who was trying to get the case overturned and why it went to the federal court at all?

I did they could have easily done it with those weapons.

Did we read different accounts? I thought the explosives failed. Silly me.

[KaelGotDwarves]

@ Lumin: Nope, because it depends on your definition of true and false

"well regulated militia" - How do you define that? Definition of well regulated militia ranges from any citizen to say, organized police force.

Also, in 1787, "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" was true. Now it is not.

But the Constitution is ALWAYS truth, you say?

Black people are only worth 3/5ths of a person

That worked 200+ years ago, when all guns took over half a minute to reload and you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with them at 200 yards. I maintain that a "well regulated militia", in our time, would be the National Guard.

The national guard is not a militia. Well, it is, but only in the exact same way the US Federal military is a militia.

The National Guard is a well regulated citizen militia; we could argue about definitions and word choice forever, but that's for the Constitutional lawyers, not us 'tards on the internet

The Army would not be one, but the Army Reserve would be under that interpretation: To defend our borders and serve our people.

[Kogan Loloklam]

@ Lumin: Nope, because it depends on your definition of true and false

"well regulated militia" - How do you define that? Definition of well regulated militia ranges from any citizen to say, organized police force.

Also, in 1787, "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" was true. Now it is not.

But the Constitution is ALWAYS truth, you say?

Black people are only worth 3/5ths of a person

The constitution is ALWAYS truth for the citizens of the United States of America, and when it isn't, then A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is truth, where "well regulated" means "a bunch of hicks with guns". Since one is true when the other one is not, and since that one can become impossible if it is rejected as truth because security already exists, the other one must ALWAYS be protected at any cost.

[KaelGotDwarves]

The constitution is ALWAYS truth for the citizens of the United States of America, and when it isn't, then A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is truth, where "well regulated" means "a bunch of hicks with guns". Since one is true when the other one is not, and since that one can become impossible if it is rejected as truth because security already exists, the other one must ALWAYS be protected at any cost.

The Constitution changes, and needs to change as our needs change. Back then, you didn't need to worry about students snapping and going on 30 people killing rampages at schools. No out-of-work software engineers shooting 7 women at health clubs.

The previous example shows that the Constitution changes.

Also, women shouldn't be allowed to vote

[Kogan Loloklam]

The Constitution changes, and needs to change as our needs change. Back then, you didn't need to worry about students snapping and going on 30 people killing rampages at schools. No out-of-work software engineers shooting 7 women at health clubs.

And does change in a constitutional way. Also, back then, it was mandated that EVERYONE have a gun. Officers could arrest you for not having one. The problem is that some people don't have guns nowadays.

You want to infringe on the right to bear arms? Amend it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Constitution is always true, untill the states of the union mutualy feel that it must be amended. You know, with the amendments. The 3/5th's compromise was removed long ago. Even if it were not, the 3/5th's compromise says that slaves are considered 3/5th's of a person. Not black people. As Amendment Thirteen banned slavery across the board, it would no longer be relevent.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Uh, except when we still have silly shit in the Constitution -
Under Amendment 21, after repealing Amendment 18.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

You can have it, but you can't import or transport it.