TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, KW95 said: so called law abiding citizen This encapsulates the entirety of the "You aren't an honest bargaining partner, so I'm not willing to negotiate with you," position that rights activists take. I couldn't possibly have made my argument any better than you just made it for me. Thank you for that.
Tiberius Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 21 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Of course the criminal is dark-skinned... And of course its a lie. No one is trying to take away all the guns, but since banning assault weapons is a popular idea, the right wing propagandists must tell lies. Thanks for pointing that out...or not
GoBills808 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 25 minutes ago, B-Man said: I think if we're to ever have a reasonable discussion about gun violence, the equivalency of items with firearms whose primary function is something other than killing humans needs to be addressed. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, KW95 said: Whatever man, You guys so scared of losing everything. Jesus. Yeah, we should just happily accept losing our inalienable rights and the only means of protection from government tyranny we have at our disposal. I mean gee, we should just GIVE UP every civil liberty that protects citizens and fundamentally makes this country the bastion of freedom that it is. 1
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I think if we're to ever have a reasonable discussion about gun violence, the equivalency of items with firearms whose primary function is something other than killing humans needs to be addressed. I think we need to clarify if that's guns' primary function, first.
KW95 - JA17 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Yeah, we should just happily accept losing our inalienable rights and the only means of protection from government tyranny we have at our disposal. I mean gee, we should just GIVE UP every civil liberty that protects citizens and fundamentally makes this country the bastion of freedom that it is. Over the top much? Go buy some bitcoins. Its all about Decentralization.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I think if we're to ever have a reasonable discussion about gun violence, the equivalency of items with firearms whose primary function is something other than killing humans needs to be addressed. The relevant purpose, as framed by the Second Amendment, is to kill humans engaging in a certain type of behavior or to deter them from behaving in a way that might lead to their death, not to kill indiscriminately. I think if we're to ever have a reasonable discussion about gun violence, the equivalency of the desire to protect natural rights and a lack of caring about mass shootings needs to be addressed. Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
KW95 - JA17 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 The Constitution. Laws created 300 years ago when the Model T was still 200 years away! Great Stuff
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, KW95 said: Over the top much? Not even a little.
KW95 - JA17 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Not even a little. Delusional!
GoBills808 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I think we need to clarify if that's guns' primary function, first. 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The relevant purpose, as framed by the Second Amendment, is to kill human engaging in a certain type of behavior, not to kill indiscriminately. I think if we're to ever have a reasonable discussion about gun violence, the equivalency of the desire to protect natural rights and a lack of caring about mass shootings needs to be addressed. As a gun owner myself I agree with both of you. And I should have included 'certain firearms' in my original post. I still maintain that the intent of the 2nd Amendment often lost in debate over gun rights is the 'well-regulated' phrase. Slippery slope is a tough sell when there's a built-in clause IMO.
LeviF Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, KW95 said: The Constitution. Laws created 300 years ago when the Model T was still 200 years away! Great Stuff Man, you're trotting out all the talking points today. This, kids, is what we call chronological snobbery. "It's the current year, therefore we know better!"
KW95 - JA17 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 Just now, LeviF91 said: Man, you're trotting out all the talking points today. This, kids, is what we call chronological snobbery. "It's the current year, therefore we know better!" Bah hahahah!
LeviF Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 Just now, GoBills808 said: As a gun owner myself I agree with both of you. And I should have included 'certain firearms' in my original post. I still maintain that the intent of the 2nd Amendment often lost in debate over gun rights is the 'well-regulated' phrase. Slippery slope is a tough sell when there's a built-in clause IMO. As stated here many times, the 2nd does not say "well-regulated arms." It attaches no qualification to arms.
KW95 - JA17 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 America First. Wayne LaPierre for President!
GoBills808 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 Just now, LeviF91 said: As stated here many times, the 2nd does not say "well-regulated arms." It attaches no qualification to arms. No, but it refers to the militia, which has been construed with respect to Caetano v. Massachusetts (as I understand it) to extend to 'the people' in the original text.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, KW95 said: Delusional! Nope. Just informed. Try it sometime, you'll be amazed at how it helps you construct arguments. 41 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: History, reality, and the constitution makes Tasker's thoughts factual. Sorry. The bill of rights were not granted to us by government, they were granted to us by the creator. Arguing otherwise is to miss the entire point of them in the first place and grossly miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence. The second amendment is inalienable and necessary because it SECURES all the other 9 in the Bill of Rights. And if you don't understand why people are sensitive to it being rolled back then you should rethink the last decade and a half of American history where we have seen an unprecedented assault on our fundamental civil liberties by an increasingly authoritarian federal government. This assault has happened across multiple administrations, R and D. The unifying commonality between all these recent assaults on civil liberties? We're told we NEED to give them up to guarantee our safety: *The right to privacy (IV) and due process (V) were both rolled back in the name of fighting the "war on terror". A nameless, faceless, and nebulous "enemy" (which isn't really an enemy but a tactic) was used to SCARE people into thinking that the ONLY way to assure our safety is to give ground on these two fundamental principles. *The right to free speech is being threatened by those pushing the "Russia collusion delusion" who believe we need more censorship online to protect people who are too dumb to discern fact from fiction. This is not only outrageous, it's insulting to anyone who understands their history or the importance of the first amendment. *And the 2nd is under threat - and has been for years - by overly emotional reactions to tragedy. Again we're told changing this right is the ONLY WAY to assure our safety. But the reality is all the arguments for curtailing these rights have all been hogwash. Bullshite. Nonsense. If we allow those rights to be stripped back, we no longer have a democratic republic. We have an authoritarian oligarchy where the people have no voice, no influence, and no means to defend themselves. That might sound like paradise to some - but to any thinking person who understands history knows those are the ingredients for a dictatorship and unspeakable evil. So, spare me the emotional outrage which is devoid of perspective, rationality, and a knowledge of history. There are reasonable things that can and should be discussed and done to help keep people safe - but NONE of those reasonable things involve amending the Bill of Rights. Opening that door does not make any of us safer, it just puts us one step closer to slavery.
thebug Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Nope. Just informed. Try it sometime, you'll be amazed at how it helps you construct arguments. Who’s the creator?
LeviF Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: No, but it refers to the militia, which has been construed with respect to Caetano v. Massachusetts (as I understand it) to extend to 'the people' in the original text. Yes, I assumed you were going somewhere else with it. Interestingly, Caetano vacated a conviction that was based on the ideas that the weapon wasn't covered by the 2nd because it wasn't commonly used when the 2nd was written and that the weapon wasn't covered by the 2nd because it was "thoroughly modern."
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, KW95 said: The Constitution. Laws created 300 years ago when the Model T was still 200 years away! Great Stuff Interesting position. In relation to the Second Amendment this can only be an assertion that people are different than they were 300 years ago in their desires. Today there must be: No despots seeking to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from consequences at the expense of the People, no movement to squash political speech, no massive corruption and criminality in government, no government entities engaging in human trafficking, no war with other nations, no nations hostile towards America. These were the reasons for the Second Amendment, so if the Second is antiquated, all of those issues must have been solved? Edited February 22, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker 2
Recommended Posts