The Constitution was made with a series of checks and balances. The founders didn't want concentrated power anywhere.
Gun rights ensured that the people were the ultimate check and balance on state/federal military/police power. That's just as true today as it was during our founding and is just as important as the other checks and balances in our government.
However, there should be comprehensive background checks. I would also go so far as to say gun owners should need to complete mandatory training for the specific weapons they own.
The 2nd amendment says: "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." No other part of the Constitution references individual gun rights.
Not sure how your argument fits in. Also, militia at that time was made of citizens using their own guns. And since there was no standing army at the time, militias were critical to ensure security. Militias are not as important today. Plus a "well-regulated Militia" could be set up with regulations on types of arms allowed.
Plus, by your arguments, bombs or tanks shouldn't be outlawed either.
I actually don't have a strong opinion on guns but you are completely talking out of you ass. You don't know what the Constitution says. Even if you were right, the constitution isn't infallible (slavery?) and should change as needed. Thats something the Founders definitely allowed for through amendments.
I assure you, I'm not talking out of my ass. I majored in Political Science and studied Constitutional Law in law school.
The Constitution, as you wrote, specifically reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." That clause has been held to be separate and apart from the "well regulated militia" clause because of the comma that precedes it.
So, the people have an absolute right to own guns.
Now, you're equivocating on "what type of guns" they can own. When the founders wrote the Constitution, the military and the people owned the same types of guns. There is no reason to think the founders intended differently for the future.
Our founders were highly intellectual men that drafted an enduring document of governance. The entire purpose of the Constitution was for it to last. The founders absolutely knew technology would change - the rights were intended to remain the same.
You also can't pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights applies to today's country. Our methods and means of communicating have changed - free speech still applies to Internet rantings.
Our internet/email/social media communications are also protected by the 4th amendment - despite the fact that the founders "couldn't foresee" the communications revolution of the 20th/21st centuries.
If you begin to decide which amendment is "more important" you start down the path of dismantling the Bill of Rights, piece by piece.
Each is equally important and vital to our freedoms as Americans.
Lastly, you mentioned infallibility and slavery. The Bill of Rights has remained unchanged. When Blacks were freed, they were given full access to the Bill of Rights.
No one ever discussed changing the Bill of Rights to better suit the remainder of the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution (specifically regarding slavery) has been amended to better suit the Bill of Rights.
So, one could argue that the Bill of Rights is perfect when applied equally.
Therefore, our founders were infallible in its drafting and construction.
We will have to agree to disagree on a major point summarized by your last sentence for two reasons. First, nothing is perfect and no one is infallible, including the founders, and they themselves knew this. That's why there are check and balances in the first place.
More importantly, you assume that there exists a uniform interpretation of the Bill of Rights (and everything else) with regard to their practical application. Are water-boarding or solitary confinement forms of cruel and unusual punishment? I don't know but these and many others are highly contested issues. Practical issues must be addressed by either the legislature (and indirectly citizens) or courts.
I did not at all suggest we pick and choose what part of the Bill of Rights to apply. In fact, that is exactly what you are doing. For example, the first amendment is not absolute - you cannot yell "fire" in a theater or engage in libel. A court will determine whether your action is protected by the first amendment, and if not, you face a penalty.
The relevant question is "How does the Constitution apply in practice?" And applications of the 2nd Amendment are up for interpretation just as with the first amendment. I totally disagree with:
When the founders wrote the Constitution, the military and the people owned the same types of guns. There is no reason to think the founders intended differently for the future.
How do YOU know that? You have no reason to think the founders did NOT intend differently. No one is omniscient.
Either way, the founders weren't gods that we need to blindly worship. We need to think critically for ourselves, in our day, on how we apply the constitution to our society. And so you are right in that our PRESENT-DAY courts said the 4th amendment applies to modern media communications.
And there is nothing specific in the Constitution saying legislature cannot ban types of guns, namely, assault rifles. To say that you know what the "founders intended" as above is very pompous.
As I said, I don't particularly care one way or the other about this issue. But I really don't like your "appeal to authority" argument which almost inevitably leads to where dissent is viewed as treason.
The Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens. If an American were waterboarded, that would absolutely be considered torture and cruel and unusual punishment.
The "yelling fire" is used to illustrate how our rights can be used in unintended ways. The spirit of the first amendment was to allow for free discourse. Yelling fire just creates havoc and, therefore, is not protected.
Guns were and always will be dangerous. It was the intent of the founders that the citizens have the right to own deadly weapons.
Lastly, you wrote:
How do YOU know that? You have no reason to think the founders did NOT intend differently. No one is omniscient.
The Constitution may not expressly state that "armed citizens are the check and balance to the national army" but many of the historical writings by the authors of the Constitution believed this very notion.
To these (national soldiers) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Your points in this last response are insightful. I found appeal in the idea:
Guns were and always will be dangerous. It was the intent of the founders that the citizens have the right to own deadly weapons.
The Federalist Papers, which I just read quickly, also offers a more convincing argument in your favor. Also I totally agree with the last paragraph of your first response about needing better gun training. Moreover, I think that is the right way to think about this issue because it directly addresses the real problem of gun violence. My whole point here was to say: "Let's look at issues as they manifest in our day." Rather than focusing on the problem, the Constitutional issue is a red herring in the debate we see today. Furthermore, I have no doubt that identity politics plays a big role in this debate, which seems less and less about really promoting gun safety.
Thinking more about your comments, I see why the Federal government cannot ban guns wholesale. But it absolutely can regulate interstate commerce and ban the sale of anything across state lines if it is in the public interest. For example, it prohibits the sale of insurance across state lines and for a very good economic reason (dealing with the solvency of insurance companies). For not as good of a reason, they can also ban the sale of assault rifles across state lines if Congress passes a law. This would effectively ban assault rifles in states without companies producing them. At the same time, this doesn't directly address the gun violence issue since new companies and individuals can start producing them within the state.
Going back to the constitutional aspects, I find the Federalist 46 convincing. But I question how it works today. To fight against the US military, state militias must have a wide arsenal of weaponry including bombs, fighter jets, tanks, and the rest. And these weapons are banned for individual ownership for good reasons.
If we extend your stance on what Madison and other founders wanted, we should abolish the US military and only convene it in times of war. Present day geopolitics precludes that option. Furthermore, good luck selling that to the military industrial complex and everyone getting employment from it (including active-duty soldiers).
Also read its last paragraph and you'll see intent of Federalist 46 was to answer critics of the Constitution seeing a federal government as another tyrannical foreign government. It is about when ALL states take issue with the federal government. Then look at Federalist 43 where Madison says the Federal government should intervene in a specific state that has lost its "Republican character". But that is an aside.
So I really do like your view on how the issue should be viewed. But I take great issue with the Constitutional argument you presented. It requires people saying they know the founders' views on gun regulations 225 years after the fact. It's saying they know what someone not around (e.g. God or Patrice or whoever else) would want. And that is a dangerous road to go down.
The founders knew technology changed insofar as they understood the concept of innovation, but it's an impossibility for them to have understood the extent to which military technology would change. Precision guidance, rocketry, armor, biological, chemical and nuclear warfare - when all of these things exist solely in the hands of government, how can there be any feasible checks and balances from private gun ownership? Do you also advocate for private access to the full arsenal of the US military?
Should the "well regulated militia" clause mean anything, in your view? I know that the supreme court already told us that it doesn't, which settles the issue as a practical matter, but still. It's weird to me that the framers apparently just threw in some context for some reason as an "oh by the way." Isn't the presumption generally that the drafters intended every word of an enactment to have some kind of effect? The presumption against surplusage, I think it's called?
i keep hearing this argument, but it is bullshit. Federalist Farmer # clearly proves you bullshit.
The whole reason the Revoultionary war started was because Boston getting turned into a police state. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty was protesting police killing people the same as BLM are today. By being allowed to have guns they didn't have to ask the redcoats for protection, and considering the redcoats were usually the ones committing the crimes against them, its obvious why they needed guns to protect themselves.
Also by your own fucking logic, because of the way the 1st amendment is worded, the government can completely restrict freedom of speech. because the 1st amendment says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
which says nothing of completely censoring speech only abridging it.
Also, as we saw from the roof koreans during the Rodney King riots. The police won't be able to protect you, and barely try to protect you. So yeah, maybe you should get a gun to protect yourself. Hell Chris Rock, Sherod Small and literaly every famous black person to this day owns guns, and its because they remember when the police who supposedly protect them, beat the shit out of them or their relatives. By hindering gun riots, you are just telling blacks to trust the people beating the shit out of them on a daily basis to protect them.
I see your point about the Sons of Liberty and about defending ourselves. As I clearly said, I am not particularly interested in this issue one way or the other, nor am I "hindering gun riots", whatever that means. Quite frankly, this is because no one I know or myself has been the victim of gun violence or police brutality. I know, I'm selfish.
Check my second response to TheConsumer. It explains my "fucking logic" in relation to the first amendment.
You are a dumb faggot who has no clue about the current background checks we have while you use these Hillary Clinton soundbites about them. Your pussy ass liberal ideas miss the point that the vast majority of gun owners train themselves long before owning guns on the record, and then, that the people who would take any kind of mandatory course aren't the ones you need to worry about.
Then, there already is specific training for guns you buy, where at the store they show you how to load and unload it.
You are a liberal pussy who doesn't understand the reality of gun owning America and you try to appear like a middle of the road faggot by calling for things we already have.
I just wrote a post on why gun rights shouldn't be limited and how an armed population is the best, most definitive check and balance on federal/state governments.
If that's liberal, I don't want to know your definition of conservative.
You are talking about background checks we already have and more burdens on the 2A. You are a hoplophobe and are scared of your fellow American with a gun but not anyone who actually commits the crimes with them.
I wish I could require all liberal faggots to not be liberal faggots before voting, or to take a test proving they aren't a liberal faggot before voting, so that they don't keep voting for faggots who tax us more and keep our country in danger. Get it yet stupid? Faggots don't get to impose their pussy sensitive belief systems on rights before others get to exercise them.
And no, application of rights don't change just because one is about speaking and one is for buying pieces of metal. You are afraid of guns and are trying to be a cool, waffling John Oliver type - end your existence now.
Have your guns, whatever. But the "I need it for protection," "We need them to fight a corrupt government" things are total bullshit. You fight for guns because you like your guns. You read gun magazines, you buy gun accessories, you polish your guns, you shove them up your wife's cunt and ass. I get it, you enjoy your guns.
What I don't like is the phony reasoning people use. Like their choice to have a gun is some kind of noble decision.
The reality is no one wants to go on Fox News and say "My hobby matters more to me than the lives of all shooting victims," because as soon as you put it into words it becomes apparent that you're an asshole. So everyone hides behind the bullshit.
But the "I need it for protection," "We need them to fight a corrupt government" things are total bullshit. You fight for guns because you like your guns. You fight for guns because you like your guns. You read gun magazines, you buy gun accessories, you polish your guns, you shove them up your wife's cunt and ass. I get it, you enjoy your guns.
really? you apparently don't know any blacks or latinos that own guns. Do you realy think chris Rock or Dave Chapelle would be owning guns right now because they like shoving them into their wives or because they read the latest gun magazines?
Do you think Ice Cube, Dre, Easy-e, Snoop Dog, Ice-T and tons of other people owned and continue to own guns because it was a hobby for them?
Don't know how the Second Amendment couldn't be interpreted as allowing people to be armed, look at what happened during that time.
There is a fucking shitload of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines in the US and very very few are used in crimes.
If we didn't have this inner city gang violence that is rampant among black males in their teens and twenties this country would have almost no gun crime. This issue wouldn't even be up for debate.
If the politicians would address the real underlying cause of gun crime it would benefit society in many ways beyond reducing violence. They won't cause it might fuck up their chance of being re elected and they're afraid of being labeled.
I don't like Schumer (sleazeball politician) or Cumia (white trash psycho). I think gun safety is more important than gun control. And gun rights are a straw man set up by the NRA and gun companies.
Don't really care. Gun control is stupid/pointless, while gun people are by and large annoying and self-important. I would never judge anyone's hobby (I frequently finger my asshole on the Subway in front of children), but I don't get gun culture. But to each his own.
I think if you're mentally stable you should definitely be able to carry a pistol, but there's no fucking reason you should have an AR-15 or a .50 cal.
I assure you, I'm not talking out of my ass. I majored in Political Science and studied Constitutional Law in law school.
The Constitution, as you wrote, specifically reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." That clause has been held to be separate and apart from the "well regulated militia" clause because of the comma that precedes it.
So, the people have an absolute right to own guns.
Now, you're equivocating on "what type of guns" they can own. When the founders wrote the Constitution, the military and the people owned the same types of guns. There is no reason to think the founders intended differently for the future.
Our founders were highly intellectual men that drafted an enduring document of governance. The entire purpose of the Constitution was for it to last. The founders absolutely knew technology would change - the rights were intended to remain the same.
You also can't pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights applies to today's country. Our methods and means of communicating have changed - free speech still applies to Internet rantings.
Our internet/email/social media communications are also protected by the 4th amendment - despite the fact that the founders "couldn't foresee" the communications revolution of the 20th/21st centuries.
If you begin to decide which amendment is "more important" you start down the path of dismantling the Bill of Rights, piece by piece.
Each is equally important and vital to our freedoms as Americans.
Lastly, you mentioned infallibility and slavery. The Bill of Rights has remained unchanged. When Blacks were freed, they were given full access to the Bill of Rights.
No one ever discussed changing the Bill of Rights to better suit the remainder of the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution (specifically regarding slavery) has been amended to better suit the Bill of Rights.
So, one could argue that the Bill of Rights is perfect when applied equally.
Therefore, our founders were infallible in its drafting and construction.
i keep hearing this argument, but it is bullshit. Federalist Farmer # clearly proves you bullshit.
The whole reason the Revoultionary war started was because Boston getting turned into a police state. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty was protesting police killing people the same as BLM are today. By being allowed to have guns they didn't have to ask the redcoats for protection, and considering the redcoats were usually the ones committing the crimes against them, its obvious why they needed guns to protect themselves.
Also by your own fucking logic, because of the way the 1st amendment is worded, the government can completely restrict freedom of speech. because the 1st amendment says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
which says nothing of completely censoring speech only abridging it.
Also, as we saw from the roof koreans during the Rodney King riots. The police won't be able to protect you, and barely try to protect you. So yeah, maybe you should get a gun to protect yourself. Hell Chris Rock, Sherod Small and literaly every famous black person to this day owns guns, and its because they remember when the police who supposedly protect them, beat the shit out of them or their relatives. By hindering gun riots, you are just telling blacks to trust the people beating the shit out of them on a daily basis to protect them.
You are talking about background checks we already have and more burdens on the 2A. You are a hoplophobe and are scared of your fellow American with a gun but not anyone who actually commits the crimes with them.
I wish I could require all liberal faggots to not be liberal faggots before voting, or to take a test proving they aren't a liberal faggot before voting, so that they don't keep voting for faggots who tax us more and keep our country in danger. Get it yet stupid? Faggots don't get to impose their pussy sensitive belief systems on rights before others get to exercise them.
And no, application of rights don't change just because one is about speaking and one is for buying pieces of metal. You are afraid of guns and are trying to be a cool, waffling John Oliver type - end your existence now.
34 comments
8 HookerMouth82 2016-01-15
I want everyone but Anthony to have guns.
7 charliemccarthy 2016-01-15
I'm for Cumia shooting Schumer.
6 _TheConsumer_ 2016-01-15
More of a Cumia.
The Constitution was made with a series of checks and balances. The founders didn't want concentrated power anywhere.
Gun rights ensured that the people were the ultimate check and balance on state/federal military/police power. That's just as true today as it was during our founding and is just as important as the other checks and balances in our government.
However, there should be comprehensive background checks. I would also go so far as to say gun owners should need to complete mandatory training for the specific weapons they own.
1 Aemon12 2016-01-15
The 2nd amendment says: "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." No other part of the Constitution references individual gun rights.
Not sure how your argument fits in. Also, militia at that time was made of citizens using their own guns. And since there was no standing army at the time, militias were critical to ensure security. Militias are not as important today. Plus a "well-regulated Militia" could be set up with regulations on types of arms allowed.
Plus, by your arguments, bombs or tanks shouldn't be outlawed either.
I actually don't have a strong opinion on guns but you are completely talking out of you ass. You don't know what the Constitution says. Even if you were right, the constitution isn't infallible (slavery?) and should change as needed. Thats something the Founders definitely allowed for through amendments.
7 _TheConsumer_ 2016-01-15
I assure you, I'm not talking out of my ass. I majored in Political Science and studied Constitutional Law in law school.
The Constitution, as you wrote, specifically reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." That clause has been held to be separate and apart from the "well regulated militia" clause because of the comma that precedes it.
So, the people have an absolute right to own guns.
Now, you're equivocating on "what type of guns" they can own. When the founders wrote the Constitution, the military and the people owned the same types of guns. There is no reason to think the founders intended differently for the future.
Our founders were highly intellectual men that drafted an enduring document of governance. The entire purpose of the Constitution was for it to last. The founders absolutely knew technology would change - the rights were intended to remain the same.
You also can't pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights applies to today's country. Our methods and means of communicating have changed - free speech still applies to Internet rantings.
Our internet/email/social media communications are also protected by the 4th amendment - despite the fact that the founders "couldn't foresee" the communications revolution of the 20th/21st centuries.
If you begin to decide which amendment is "more important" you start down the path of dismantling the Bill of Rights, piece by piece. Each is equally important and vital to our freedoms as Americans.
Lastly, you mentioned infallibility and slavery. The Bill of Rights has remained unchanged. When Blacks were freed, they were given full access to the Bill of Rights.
No one ever discussed changing the Bill of Rights to better suit the remainder of the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution (specifically regarding slavery) has been amended to better suit the Bill of Rights.
So, one could argue that the Bill of Rights is perfect when applied equally. Therefore, our founders were infallible in its drafting and construction.
4 Aemon12 2016-01-15
We will have to agree to disagree on a major point summarized by your last sentence for two reasons. First, nothing is perfect and no one is infallible, including the founders, and they themselves knew this. That's why there are check and balances in the first place.
More importantly, you assume that there exists a uniform interpretation of the Bill of Rights (and everything else) with regard to their practical application. Are water-boarding or solitary confinement forms of cruel and unusual punishment? I don't know but these and many others are highly contested issues. Practical issues must be addressed by either the legislature (and indirectly citizens) or courts.
I did not at all suggest we pick and choose what part of the Bill of Rights to apply. In fact, that is exactly what you are doing. For example, the first amendment is not absolute - you cannot yell "fire" in a theater or engage in libel. A court will determine whether your action is protected by the first amendment, and if not, you face a penalty.
The relevant question is "How does the Constitution apply in practice?" And applications of the 2nd Amendment are up for interpretation just as with the first amendment. I totally disagree with:
How do YOU know that? You have no reason to think the founders did NOT intend differently. No one is omniscient.
Either way, the founders weren't gods that we need to blindly worship. We need to think critically for ourselves, in our day, on how we apply the constitution to our society. And so you are right in that our PRESENT-DAY courts said the 4th amendment applies to modern media communications.
And there is nothing specific in the Constitution saying legislature cannot ban types of guns, namely, assault rifles. To say that you know what the "founders intended" as above is very pompous.
As I said, I don't particularly care one way or the other about this issue. But I really don't like your "appeal to authority" argument which almost inevitably leads to where dissent is viewed as treason.
1 _TheConsumer_ 2016-01-15
The Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens. If an American were waterboarded, that would absolutely be considered torture and cruel and unusual punishment.
That said, President Obama killed an American born terrorist in a targeted drone strike without a trial, judge or jury. His justification was that an enemy combatant has no Constitutional rights. That sets a dangerous precedent where any American can be labeled an enemy combatant and killed without the slightest bit of due process.
The "yelling fire" is used to illustrate how our rights can be used in unintended ways. The spirit of the first amendment was to allow for free discourse. Yelling fire just creates havoc and, therefore, is not protected.
Guns were and always will be dangerous. It was the intent of the founders that the citizens have the right to own deadly weapons.
Lastly, you wrote:
The Constitution may not expressly state that "armed citizens are the check and balance to the national army" but many of the historical writings by the authors of the Constitution believed this very notion.
James Madison was a major contributor to the Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, he addressed a concern about the American government having a national army. The primary fear was that the federal government would use the army to attack the states and subjugate the citizens:
1 [deleted] 2016-01-15
[deleted]
1 Aemon12 2016-01-15
Your points in this last response are insightful. I found appeal in the idea:
The Federalist Papers, which I just read quickly, also offers a more convincing argument in your favor. Also I totally agree with the last paragraph of your first response about needing better gun training. Moreover, I think that is the right way to think about this issue because it directly addresses the real problem of gun violence. My whole point here was to say: "Let's look at issues as they manifest in our day." Rather than focusing on the problem, the Constitutional issue is a red herring in the debate we see today. Furthermore, I have no doubt that identity politics plays a big role in this debate, which seems less and less about really promoting gun safety.
Thinking more about your comments, I see why the Federal government cannot ban guns wholesale. But it absolutely can regulate interstate commerce and ban the sale of anything across state lines if it is in the public interest. For example, it prohibits the sale of insurance across state lines and for a very good economic reason (dealing with the solvency of insurance companies). For not as good of a reason, they can also ban the sale of assault rifles across state lines if Congress passes a law. This would effectively ban assault rifles in states without companies producing them. At the same time, this doesn't directly address the gun violence issue since new companies and individuals can start producing them within the state.
Going back to the constitutional aspects, I find the Federalist 46 convincing. But I question how it works today. To fight against the US military, state militias must have a wide arsenal of weaponry including bombs, fighter jets, tanks, and the rest. And these weapons are banned for individual ownership for good reasons.
If we extend your stance on what Madison and other founders wanted, we should abolish the US military and only convene it in times of war. Present day geopolitics precludes that option. Furthermore, good luck selling that to the military industrial complex and everyone getting employment from it (including active-duty soldiers).
Also read its last paragraph and you'll see intent of Federalist 46 was to answer critics of the Constitution seeing a federal government as another tyrannical foreign government. It is about when ALL states take issue with the federal government. Then look at Federalist 43 where Madison says the Federal government should intervene in a specific state that has lost its "Republican character". But that is an aside.
So I really do like your view on how the issue should be viewed. But I take great issue with the Constitutional argument you presented. It requires people saying they know the founders' views on gun regulations 225 years after the fact. It's saying they know what someone not around (e.g. God or Patrice or whoever else) would want. And that is a dangerous road to go down.
2 Holzmann 2016-01-15
The founders knew technology changed insofar as they understood the concept of innovation, but it's an impossibility for them to have understood the extent to which military technology would change. Precision guidance, rocketry, armor, biological, chemical and nuclear warfare - when all of these things exist solely in the hands of government, how can there be any feasible checks and balances from private gun ownership? Do you also advocate for private access to the full arsenal of the US military?
1 TobyTheRobot 2016-01-15
Should the "well regulated militia" clause mean anything, in your view? I know that the supreme court already told us that it doesn't, which settles the issue as a practical matter, but still. It's weird to me that the framers apparently just threw in some context for some reason as an "oh by the way." Isn't the presumption generally that the drafters intended every word of an enactment to have some kind of effect? The presumption against surplusage, I think it's called?
1 SWIMsfriend 2016-01-15
i keep hearing this argument, but it is bullshit. Federalist Farmer # clearly proves you bullshit.
The whole reason the Revoultionary war started was because Boston getting turned into a police state. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty was protesting police killing people the same as BLM are today. By being allowed to have guns they didn't have to ask the redcoats for protection, and considering the redcoats were usually the ones committing the crimes against them, its obvious why they needed guns to protect themselves.
Also by your own fucking logic, because of the way the 1st amendment is worded, the government can completely restrict freedom of speech. because the 1st amendment says
which says nothing of completely censoring speech only abridging it.
Also, as we saw from the roof koreans during the Rodney King riots. The police won't be able to protect you, and barely try to protect you. So yeah, maybe you should get a gun to protect yourself. Hell Chris Rock, Sherod Small and literaly every famous black person to this day owns guns, and its because they remember when the police who supposedly protect them, beat the shit out of them or their relatives. By hindering gun riots, you are just telling blacks to trust the people beating the shit out of them on a daily basis to protect them.
1 [deleted] 2016-01-15
[deleted]
0 Aemon12 2016-01-15
I see your point about the Sons of Liberty and about defending ourselves. As I clearly said, I am not particularly interested in this issue one way or the other, nor am I "hindering gun riots", whatever that means. Quite frankly, this is because no one I know or myself has been the victim of gun violence or police brutality. I know, I'm selfish.
Check my second response to TheConsumer. It explains my "fucking logic" in relation to the first amendment.
1 heslaotian 2016-01-15
We aren't exactly the ultimate check and balance standing there with our Glock 19's and the government has Predator drones.
-7 libsarementallyill 2016-01-15
You are a dumb faggot who has no clue about the current background checks we have while you use these Hillary Clinton soundbites about them. Your pussy ass liberal ideas miss the point that the vast majority of gun owners train themselves long before owning guns on the record, and then, that the people who would take any kind of mandatory course aren't the ones you need to worry about.
Then, there already is specific training for guns you buy, where at the store they show you how to load and unload it.
You are a liberal pussy who doesn't understand the reality of gun owning America and you try to appear like a middle of the road faggot by calling for things we already have.
4 3stepsbackward 2016-01-15
This will be read on CNN as a manifesto some day.
4 _TheConsumer_ 2016-01-15
I just wrote a post on why gun rights shouldn't be limited and how an armed population is the best, most definitive check and balance on federal/state governments.
If that's liberal, I don't want to know your definition of conservative.
0 libsarementallyill 2016-01-15
You are talking about background checks we already have and more burdens on the 2A. You are a hoplophobe and are scared of your fellow American with a gun but not anyone who actually commits the crimes with them.
I wish I could require all liberal faggots to not be liberal faggots before voting, or to take a test proving they aren't a liberal faggot before voting, so that they don't keep voting for faggots who tax us more and keep our country in danger. Get it yet stupid? Faggots don't get to impose their pussy sensitive belief systems on rights before others get to exercise them.
And no, application of rights don't change just because one is about speaking and one is for buying pieces of metal. You are afraid of guns and are trying to be a cool, waffling John Oliver type - end your existence now.
1 PhilipMarma 2016-01-15
Tough talk, macho man
1 INeedToHearABam 2016-01-15
Your such a dork
5 Seref15 2016-01-15
More of a Jim Jefferies.
Have your guns, whatever. But the "I need it for protection," "We need them to fight a corrupt government" things are total bullshit. You fight for guns because you like your guns. You read gun magazines, you buy gun accessories, you polish your guns, you shove them up your wife's cunt and ass. I get it, you enjoy your guns.
What I don't like is the phony reasoning people use. Like their choice to have a gun is some kind of noble decision.
The reality is no one wants to go on Fox News and say "My hobby matters more to me than the lives of all shooting victims," because as soon as you put it into words it becomes apparent that you're an asshole. So everyone hides behind the bullshit.
3 SWIMsfriend 2016-01-15
really? you apparently don't know any blacks or latinos that own guns. Do you realy think chris Rock or Dave Chapelle would be owning guns right now because they like shoving them into their wives or because they read the latest gun magazines?
Do you think Ice Cube, Dre, Easy-e, Snoop Dog, Ice-T and tons of other people owned and continue to own guns because it was a hobby for them?
3 Lyle_D_Chipperson 2016-01-15
The protection thing can be legitimate though.
1 [deleted] 2016-01-15
[deleted]
3 Stevebg 2016-01-15
Cumia.
Don't know how the Second Amendment couldn't be interpreted as allowing people to be armed, look at what happened during that time.
There is a fucking shitload of "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines in the US and very very few are used in crimes.
If we didn't have this inner city gang violence that is rampant among black males in their teens and twenties this country would have almost no gun crime. This issue wouldn't even be up for debate.
If the politicians would address the real underlying cause of gun crime it would benefit society in many ways beyond reducing violence. They won't cause it might fuck up their chance of being re elected and they're afraid of being labeled.
3 Woollenrat 2016-01-15
The only guns I need are between my elbows and my shoulders.
2 classic-yapper 2016-01-15
Double guns?
3 little-pete-ferguson 2016-01-15
Legal gun owners, who belong to a gun club/ range should be allowed to have RPG's!
Illegal guns, used for slaying multiples in the hood should be forcibly collected and destroyed
Instead of banning legal weapons- why not round up the illegal guns on the streets?
Have a war on illegal guns, rather than a war on drugs!
2 Aemon12 2016-01-15
I don't like Schumer (sleazeball politician) or Cumia (white trash psycho). I think gun safety is more important than gun control. And gun rights are a straw man set up by the NRA and gun companies.
2 Lyle_D_Chipperson 2016-01-15
The right to bear arms, tsss what do ya got claws n' fur and fawkin love honey or somethin of that natuuure?
1 Jackatard 2016-01-15
Schumer.
1 Put_some_earl_on_it 2016-01-15
Don't really care. Gun control is stupid/pointless, while gun people are by and large annoying and self-important. I would never judge anyone's hobby (I frequently finger my asshole on the Subway in front of children), but I don't get gun culture. But to each his own.
0 VladDogbreath 2016-01-15
How many guns does Cumia have? Edit- *did
-1 19headaches 2016-01-15
I think if you're mentally stable you should definitely be able to carry a pistol, but there's no fucking reason you should have an AR-15 or a .50 cal.
3 GWARscientist 2016-01-15
So it's mandatory psychiatric evaluations for err body then?
3 SWIMsfriend 2016-01-15
what if you have to hunt for food?
you can't kill a deer with a Glock
1 [deleted] 2016-01-15
[deleted]
7 _TheConsumer_ 2016-01-15
I assure you, I'm not talking out of my ass. I majored in Political Science and studied Constitutional Law in law school.
The Constitution, as you wrote, specifically reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." That clause has been held to be separate and apart from the "well regulated militia" clause because of the comma that precedes it.
So, the people have an absolute right to own guns.
Now, you're equivocating on "what type of guns" they can own. When the founders wrote the Constitution, the military and the people owned the same types of guns. There is no reason to think the founders intended differently for the future.
Our founders were highly intellectual men that drafted an enduring document of governance. The entire purpose of the Constitution was for it to last. The founders absolutely knew technology would change - the rights were intended to remain the same.
You also can't pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights applies to today's country. Our methods and means of communicating have changed - free speech still applies to Internet rantings.
Our internet/email/social media communications are also protected by the 4th amendment - despite the fact that the founders "couldn't foresee" the communications revolution of the 20th/21st centuries.
If you begin to decide which amendment is "more important" you start down the path of dismantling the Bill of Rights, piece by piece. Each is equally important and vital to our freedoms as Americans.
Lastly, you mentioned infallibility and slavery. The Bill of Rights has remained unchanged. When Blacks were freed, they were given full access to the Bill of Rights.
No one ever discussed changing the Bill of Rights to better suit the remainder of the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution (specifically regarding slavery) has been amended to better suit the Bill of Rights.
So, one could argue that the Bill of Rights is perfect when applied equally. Therefore, our founders were infallible in its drafting and construction.
1 SWIMsfriend 2016-01-15
i keep hearing this argument, but it is bullshit. Federalist Farmer # clearly proves you bullshit.
The whole reason the Revoultionary war started was because Boston getting turned into a police state. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty was protesting police killing people the same as BLM are today. By being allowed to have guns they didn't have to ask the redcoats for protection, and considering the redcoats were usually the ones committing the crimes against them, its obvious why they needed guns to protect themselves.
Also by your own fucking logic, because of the way the 1st amendment is worded, the government can completely restrict freedom of speech. because the 1st amendment says
which says nothing of completely censoring speech only abridging it.
Also, as we saw from the roof koreans during the Rodney King riots. The police won't be able to protect you, and barely try to protect you. So yeah, maybe you should get a gun to protect yourself. Hell Chris Rock, Sherod Small and literaly every famous black person to this day owns guns, and its because they remember when the police who supposedly protect them, beat the shit out of them or their relatives. By hindering gun riots, you are just telling blacks to trust the people beating the shit out of them on a daily basis to protect them.
0 libsarementallyill 2016-01-15
You are talking about background checks we already have and more burdens on the 2A. You are a hoplophobe and are scared of your fellow American with a gun but not anyone who actually commits the crimes with them.
I wish I could require all liberal faggots to not be liberal faggots before voting, or to take a test proving they aren't a liberal faggot before voting, so that they don't keep voting for faggots who tax us more and keep our country in danger. Get it yet stupid? Faggots don't get to impose their pussy sensitive belief systems on rights before others get to exercise them.
And no, application of rights don't change just because one is about speaking and one is for buying pieces of metal. You are afraid of guns and are trying to be a cool, waffling John Oliver type - end your existence now.