Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On average in 2009, 93 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day. Think about that, in less than two hours more people will die on US roadways than were murdered by the nutcase in Colorado and for this we are willing to surrender one of our fundamental rights?
Folks really need to retire this canard.
1500, Americans die from cancer everyday. So what?
If you can't distinguish between deaths due to illness and accidents and those that are the result of willful intent... there's not much hope for you in the logic department.
Quote:
Do we really want to give away one of our most fundamental rights because of a single nut case?
Gee, silly me, to think that LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS were my most fundamental rights.
1500, Americans die from cancer everyday. So what?
If you can't distinguish between deaths due to illness and accidents and those that are the result of willful intent... there's not much hope for you in the logic department.
Gee, silly me, to think that LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS were my most fundamental rights.
Half of the auto deaths are not accidents. Drunk drivers willfully operate those vehicles.
Like many pre-civil war Constitutional concepts the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the states some autonomy from the federal government. Thus why the 2nd Amendment was, until 2010 principally directed at the federal government and not the states, and why the phases "well regulated militia" and "security of a free State" are used, since at the time the state militia was the primary defense force of each individual state.
So this is the marxist trash they now pollute minds with? No wonder we're in such deep doo doo. The reality is, the 2nd amendment was (and still is) a necessary means to safeguard the people against tyranny by guaranteeing the right of the people access to the tools required to defend against such tyranny ... with the implied right to ALSO organize into militias for that purpose. What is a state, after all? The "people" are the state. the state is not a flag or a capitol building ... the state is a collection of people residing in an area defined by territorial borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
After the Civil War however the conception of the 2nd Amendment began to change because the post civil war amendments and in particular the 14th amendment essentially stripped individual states of a lot of their autonomy. Basically in the era between 1860-1880 the entire concept of how US citizens identified changed. Prior to 1860 most US citizens identified chiefly as Virginians, Rhode Islanders, Ohioans etc. by 1880 most US citizens viewed themselves first and foremost as Americans. Thus the original concept behind the 2nd amendment is a vestige of a bygone era, and this is again an example of why I think originalism is far from an ideal method of looking at the Constitution.
Your way of thinking is what has led to almost every problem we see today ... virtually every problem we have can be traced back directly to the abandonment of constructionist ideology. Whether one looks to the disastrous consequences of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment ... or the relatively frequent violations of the constitution such as the militarism which now dismisses the need for congressional declarations of war as stipulated by the constitution. The list of flagrant power grabs by a Federal Government that now claims the right to even redefine it's own restrictions originally imposed upon it by that constitution, has literally rendered the constitution null and void, relegating it to the status of historic memorabilia. How can one impose restrictions on an entity effectively, when that entity may redefine those restrictions at will and according to it's own convenience? This is the lunacy that you promote in this illogical and rather dangerous concept of dismissing originalism.
Apparently you do not have the faintest clue as to the primary purpose of the constitution ... or lack the insight and raw logic to recognize the insanity of allowing the restricted to redefine their own restrictions.
Far from being a vestige of a bygone era, the relevance of the 2nd amendment has never been more clear than it is today ... and that will become most apparent not long after the right has been chipped away until it is completely gone ... which by the way, is an ongoing effort as we speak. Not long afterward, you see the need, but then it will be too late.
I give up with people like "Randomstudent". There's no arguing with purposeful ignorance and a far leftwing view of American history. His take and lack of education on this matter is so far off the mark that it's not worth my time to try to educate him.
The past century has been the bloodiest in recorded history, all the result of governments, and you seriously believe mistrusting a government is obsolete? Our own government has dropped nukes on cities in living memory, assasinated citizens without trial, etc., and you think we should trust it so much we give up any means of defense against its abuses? Governmental power and stability is smoke and mirrors. If even 1/10 of 1 percent of the population rose up against it, it could be toppled. It has happened countless times including recently. Our mighty military can't defeat people half stuck in the 9th century in the Middle East, couldn't defeat a nation of uneducated rice farmers in Vietnam and we're still at a stalemate in Korea.
O.K. and your 2nd amendment rights has changed any of this past bad behaviour just exactly how?
The very same politicians that dictated impossible rules of engagement to the military in all of those other episodes in your history guaranteeing they fought with one hand behind their back to perpetuate the conflict and it;s profits would indeed "loose the dogs of war" were they protecting their very selves from a citizen revolt.
Were it ever to come that a congress were staring a citizen uprising in the face; you could bet your damn bippy they'd enact the absolute most ruthless rules of engagement yet to be seen by your military.
You would not get your 4X4 pick-ups out of your driveways to head to your bunkers in Montana. There'd be nothing but grease spots all over the landscape to attest to your late existance.
Literal craziness is the belief you need to walk around with a gun on your hip in 2012. The need for people to be armed narrowed to protecting yourself from your fellow citizens seem sane to you?
Yes. In an era where people will trample each other to death at a freaking Wal Mart for a %$&* $10 toaster on black friday ... you're damed straight we need to maintain the right to have that gun. We are embarking on a financial calamity greater than the Great Depression at a time where 90% of the populace are not self sufficient as was the case during the first implosion of the economy. If you think that these types of mindless animals won't go off the deep end when they find themselves hungry and destitute, just sit their and wait for it. But don't bother to dial 911 ... it won't do you a bit of good.
We have major cities in the United States TODAY that are more dangerous than Baghdad, Iraq, though I doubt any sane person would want to stroll the streets of Baghdad unarmed.
We have towns and cities across the country who are making massive cuts to police and emergency response due to budget deficits, and no time in the past 50 years is the need for personal firearms greater than it is in 2012 under the circumstances we currently face, with the likelihood things are going to get worse before they get better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
And your inability to think of a country where the citizens DON'T NEED to be armed shows and indeed means you're doomed to repeat your history over and over again with the same results.
What history would you be referring to comrade? What bloody history is there that shows that the path to your liberal utopia has been paved by disarming the populace? There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dead people that would argue with you on this baseless point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
My knowledge of history is just fine thank you. Your mistrust of your own government, which is the very foundation of the 2nd amendment is, or should be, obsolete. Otherwise why do you keep going through the motions of electing these guys you can't trust. How will you go about unseating any Federal government with your homespun militias when the gov't has control over the "real" military.
I've got a better question for you .... what glorious evidence can you point to that would calm the fears of those who have this irrational distrust government? Is it the TSA that believes they can molest you with impunity? Is it the the government that believes they can snatch you off the street and incarcerate you indefinitely, without a warrant of arrest or the need for due process, and keep you there forever and without a trial or even a lawyer? A nation that has more people incarcerated than any other nation on earth? A nation who has shown such disregard for the sanctity of human life that it's secretary of state considered 1 Million Iraqi children dead from sanctions worth the price ... and a similar collection of sociopaths who are champing at the bit to launch another war, this time against Iran and the Hundreds of Thousands of innocent civilians who will surely be murdered in the process? That trustworthy and benevolent government?
Give us a little evidence to assuage our irrational fears, won't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
All talk of the ability to form a militia is now impractical, impossible and merely window dressing for the real reason you all crave your gun rights; to protect yourelves from each other!
It's not a "craving" ... it's a practical necessity, recognized by those who have decided not to place their heads up their backsides, and can see with their unencumbered view of the real world, including the number of freely roaming lunatics, morons and imbeciles that seem to make up such a frighteningly significant portion of the populace these days ... and I'm not referring to the law abiding owners of firearms.
Yes, we do need to protect ourselves, and it's both our right and responsibility to do so. And yes, sometimes that includes each other ... just ask the folks in Colorado ... had those movie goers been armed, that LUNATIC might have been stopped before he ran out of bullets.
And I've got news for you ..... just the firearm owners in this country represent the largest army on earth, and if it were not for that fact ... we would have already seen the imposition of greater levels of tyranny than we are currently seeing unfold. That's why we are being economically attacked, and not militarily. But an attack is an attack ... and you have to be blind as a bat not to see it.
LOL so you think the founders intended to have a Federal Government so powerful it could tell states what the states what the states' gun laws should be? The bill of rights initially was never intended to apply to the states. That is the premise of Barron v Baltimore and US v Cruikshank. It wasn't until the late 19th and early 20th century with cases like Twining v. New Jersey that the bill of rights was expanded to apply against the states. Therefore the 2nd Amendment was merely a way to stop the federal government from preventing states from forming and arming militias. We have however, abandoned that view as can be seen by recent decisions of the Supreme Court.
You clearly are one of those "Constitutionalists" who doesn't know anything about the Constitution. This is obvious in that you can only sling insults and use platitudes to back up your criticism.
If you actually wanted to take a true and legitimate Constitutionally Conservative position on this you would say that the federal government has no business in gun control and gun control, or lack there of should be entirely decided by the states.
That is pretty much what the Heller decision was all about. The majority ruling was that Yes, the 2nd is a constitutional individual right protected by the federal government but the states have the right to impose reasonable restrictions. It's all good, the way it is. Massachusetts banned all assault weapons under Romney as Gov. New York and New Jersey have severe restrictions on owning large capacity magazines. So the ability to restrict is all there on a local level with existing laws. Going after the feds to tighten restrictions would be a Don Quixote thing for liberals, IMO.
I guess I'm the odd man out here. I don't believe that our current government is tyrannical or trying to create a socialist dictatorship, I think the Obama admin is doing the very best job possible under the circumstances and I'll most likely vote for him again. He could do a lot better with a little republican help. But..........and this is the rub, I will defend the second amendment and the Supreme Court's Heller decision ruling that it is an individual right. I have owned guns since 1970.
1500, Americans die from cancer everyday. So what?
If you can't distinguish between deaths due to illness and accidents and those that are the result of willful intent... there's not much hope for you in the logic department.
Gee, silly me, to think that LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS were my most fundamental rights.
A lot of Americans think these fine words are in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights or any subsequent Ammendent. Unfortunately they are not. The Declaration of Independence is where they are and it is not a constitution.
These thoughts were put in a constitution and one that tasked the State with making sure that the people had these as well as food, shelter and healthcare. Unfortunately the author of this constitution the initial one for the USSR was Vladimir Illych Ulyanov (nom de guerre Lenin). Don't be shocked Lenin had a copy of the United States Constituion (trans in Russian) in his study.
Half of the auto deaths are not accidents. Drunk drivers willfully operate those vehicles.
Willfully operate and intent to kill, do I really have to explain the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the state is not a flag or a capitol building ... the state is a collection of people residing in an area defined by territorial borders. 
