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.
No, I'm afraid you didn't. A serious poster {to me} is someone who has a specific view or belief about a certain issue, regardless of whether or not it agrees with my own or not, who can back it up with reasonable arguments utilizing both facts and logic, who does so without patronizing or mocking anyone who disagrees with them, and who can do so in an intelligent and sophisticated way.....
In other words, not you.
I figured out that Saritaschihuahua wasn't a serious poster a while back, but the conversation amused me for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
Here's my view, in case you just didn't get it in the myriad posts some time back. I think guns should not be owned by the general population. I think hunting is okay. I hate it, but it's okay. But that's it. I don't think anyone has any business owning a gun unless they're in a field which requires one, such as Wells Fargo driver or security guard, cop, or anything like that.
Did you get it now? Or you're still in la-la land?
Let me translate this for you, WhipperSnapper. What the above actually means is:
Quote:
My view is that I know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment better than any other citizen, even if they are a lawyer, a politician, or a Supreme Court Justice, and they did not intend for anyone to own firearms except for the people in power and those that represent them. I think the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper that doesn't mean anything at all, and the views of myself and people who believe like I do should matter more than the beliefs of anyone else in this country.
I figured out that Saritaschihuahua wasn't a serious poster a while back, but the conversation amused me for a while.
Let me translate this for you, WhipperSnapper. What the above actually means is:
I think that about sums it up, in a nutshell.
You know, Jim, you are a highly surprising man. If somebody had asked me if I thought I'd ever meet a gun nut who thought the 2nd Amendment was pretty much valueless compared to the value of the Supreme Court, I'd have called him crazy. Usually what I get from gun nuts is a whole lotta 2nd amendment worship. Not you though. You'll take an interpretation by the judicial branch over what the words of the 2nd say. Which leads me to wonder... what are you gonna do, Jim, when the judicial interpretation begins to reflect the mood of the country, which is that your gun party has to stop? Or does your admiration for the judicial branch depend completely upon whether or not they reflect your deepest gun nut desires, and the minute they don't, you'll trash the Supremes?
.. and the police are closer and can react more quickly. When you live in the suburbs or more rural areas, you have to protect yourself because the nearest police/sheriff may be an hour away or tending to another call.
It ain't much better in the hood. Some friends of mine used to live 80 yards from the front gates of the Van Nuys LAPD Station. There would be a full-blown gang shoot-out in their apartment complex and there wouldn't be a cop car to be seen until well after the smoke cleared. Three reasons:
1. The police are stretched thin as it is. The nearest squad cars were probably miles away.
2. Innocent local people are afraid to call the cops when it comes to gang incidents. If you snitch, you're next.
3. If there aren't any dead or wounded on the scene, it's not a priority.
You know, Jim, you are a highly surprising man. If somebody had asked me if I thought I'd ever meet a gun nut who thought the 2nd Amendment was pretty much valueless compared to the value of the Supreme Court, I'd have called him crazy. Usually what I get from gun nuts is a whole lotta 2nd amendment worship. Not you though. You'll take an interpretation by the judicial branch over what the words of the 2nd say. Which leads me to wonder... what are you gonna do, Jim, when the judicial interpretation begins to reflect the mood of the country, which is that your gun party has to stop? Or does your admiration for the judicial branch depend completely upon whether or not they reflect your deepest gun nut desires, and the minute they don't, you'll trash the Supremes?
First, I'm not a gun nut. A firearm is a tool that I use to ensure my safety and the safety of my family. I view firearms as a necessity in a society that encourages violent crime.
Second, while the Constitution does not actually give the power of judicial review over constitutionality to the Supreme Court, that power has been delegated to the Supreme Court since the late 1700s. So far, it is an arrangement that has worked well in promoting the checks and balances system that the founding fathers were looking for. As it stands, after 200+ years of looking to the SCOTUS for rulings on constitutionality, it is accepted that this review process is now the job of the SCOTUS.
More simply, there must be a body that is able to compare laws to the constitution and verify that they are, in fact, able to be passed and enforced without a contradiction. That body is the Supreme Court, and their rulings, while subject to change upon further review, is the final say on whether legislation is "legal." I do not always agree with the Supreme Court and their rulings, but their rulings are still the deciding factor, and if they were to decide that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to bear arms, I would consider that the law... of course, the minute that decision was made there would be massive civil upheaval in the United States, but it would be the law.
To sum all of that up in a simple statement:
I, unlike you, respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the founding principal of United States law. I also respect the Supreme Court's assumed but accepted power to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I realize that although I may not always agree with their interpretation, that interpretration needs to be respected and followed because to do otherwise would negate the accepted purpose of not only the Supreme Court, but also of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights.
Any other thinly veiled attacks that you would like to make on me, or are you done now?
Blacks & Hispanics are the biggest group of victims of gun violence in America. They tend to live in areas with higher than normal gun violence and criminal activity. Their support of gun-control measures sits around ~70%
According to the Conservative talking point (mostly coming from safe, rural America), we need to increase access & # of guns so people are safe from the criminals, otherwise only criminals will be armed. Yet the people that actually have to deal w/ criminals & gun violence overwhelmingly disagree with that position, and support gun control.
Which side is more credible in this discussion on what would be the best solution to tackle gun violence? People that deal w/ gun violence at a significantly lower rate or people that deal w/ gun violence at a significantly higher rate
Can you prove that only Blacks and Hispanics in major cities support gun control? This sounds more like PEOPLE period in major cities tend to support it more.
Can you back this up with statistical evidence regarding such support?
First, I'm not a gun nut. A firearm is a tool that I use to ensure my safety and the safety of my family. I view firearms as a necessity in a society that encourages violent crime.
Second, while the Constitution does not actually give the power of judicial review over constitutionality to the Supreme Court, that power has been delegated to the Supreme Court since the late 1700s. So far, it is an arrangement that has worked well in promoting the checks and balances system that the founding fathers were looking for. As it stands, after 200+ years of looking to the SCOTUS for rulings on constitutionality, it is accepted that this review process is now the job of the SCOTUS.
More simply, there must be a body that is able to compare laws to the constitution and verify that they are, in fact, able to be passed and enforced without a contradiction. That body is the Supreme Court, and their rulings, while subject to change upon further review, is the final say on whether legislation is "legal." I do not always agree with the Supreme Court and their rulings, but their rulings are still the deciding factor, and if they were to decide that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to bear arms, I would consider that the law... of course, the minute that decision was made there would be massive civil upheaval in the United States, but it would be the law.
To sum all of that up in a simple statement:
I, unlike you, respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the founding principal of United States law. I also respect the Supreme Court's assumed but accepted power to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I realize that although I may not always agree with their interpretation, that interpretration needs to be respected and followed because to do otherwise would negate the accepted purpose of not only the Supreme Court, but also of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights.
Any other thinly veiled attacks that you would like to make on me, or are you done now?
First off, the rulings of the Supremes are modified all the time, and incorrect rulings are "corrected" by ruling differently on new cases, with a decision that varies from a previous case in which they ruled differently. It is the way rulings are "retracted" per se, and it happens all the time. Ruling differently sometimes happens as a result of adapting to changing times, which led me to my question concerning what you will do when your dear Supremes decide to change the scope of their interpretation re the 2nd.
Still, I do have to congratulate the way you so easily, as a gun owner, gun lover, and gun defender (recognized by me as a gun nut), have dismissed the 2nd so easily in lieu of the Supreme Court.
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.
