|
A well regulated militia means just that. It doesn't mean every chemically compromised burger that wants to can buy guns from a wallmart. No wonder your murder rate is African tier.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Fiiirrrst
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Also "walmart." Know your superiors, boy
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Pissssssss
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
alas, so is your posting
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Guns being out of control is also unconstitutional... ...gunconstitutional 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
"A well regulated militia..."   
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
im all about bun control 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Well regulated meant something else in funky 18th century talk and they actually do mean that every mouth breather has a right to death machines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
OP, have you considered that guns are in fact cool and good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
PerpetualSelf posted:A well regulated militia means just that. It doesn't mean every chemically compromised burger that wants to can buy guns from a wallmart. No wonder your murder rate is African tier. hosed up fi ture
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
well-regulated just meant it was in working order. The amendment is saying that there needs to be a right to bear arms if you don't want a lovely rear end militia that has to beat down red-coats and indians with cudgels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
did you know the constitution was intended to be changed and altered over time
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
lets just gun control it guys worth a shot right
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
I can't afford gun its like 200 dollars
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
JiveHonky posted:I can't afford gun its like 200 dollars if you cant afford a gun you have nothing worth protecting the system works
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Oh that makes sense
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:did you know the constitution was intended to be changed and altered over time not the ten amendments, p sure those are supposed to be basic human rights. its why its called the bill of rights you see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
there is free speech too but still libel laws that infringe on radical interpretations of that. or copyright laws that prevent you from stealing other people's speech. those are large areas of law, no small exception. can guns have the same amount of regulation and still be constitutional? of course, but it depends on the culture at the time it gets to the Supreme Court. and also whether you want to have about 100 more Waco type stand offs with militias and retaliatory McVeigh type terrorist attacks. frequent mass shootings are probably collectively less deadly than disarming US militants would be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:not the ten amendments, p sure those are supposed to be basic human rights. its why its called the bill of rights you see. there's no particular restriction to changing those, they aren't legally any different from the rest
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
anyway op sorry your pontification doesn't constitute a compelling legal argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
your mother is a well regulated militia, if you know what I mean
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
i feel like murdering someone when i get mad, even just a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:there is free speech too but still libel laws that infringe on radical interpretations of that. or copyright laws that prevent you from stealing other people's speech. those are large areas of law, no small exception. can guns have the same amount of regulation and still be constitutional? of course, but it depends on the culture at the time it gets to the Supreme Court. and also whether you want to have about 100 more Waco type stand offs with militias and retaliatory McVeigh type terrorist attacks. frequent mass shootings are probably collectively less deadly than disarming US militants would be. they can and they do. you're precluded from owning firearms for any purpose if you're a felon, which is already a far greater restriction than any restriction of expression. there are various classes of firearms that are restricted federally, and states have wide leeway to pass further restrictions, see the various state laws restricting the capacity of magazines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
It's almost sixty times more likely that an American will use his or her weapon to defend against a home invasion or robbery than it is to be used in a murder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Samuel posted:It's almost sixty times more likely that an American will use his or her weapon to defend against a home invasion or robbery than it is to be used in a murder. that's because if you kill someone in your house it's your word against that of a corpse
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:that's because if you kill someone in your house it's your word against that of a corpse that corpse better have a drat good reason to be in my house.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:there is free speech too but still libel laws that infringe on radical interpretations of that. or copyright laws that prevent you from stealing other people's speech. those are large areas of law, no small exception. can guns have the same amount of regulation and still be constitutional? of course, but it depends on the culture at the time it gets to the Supreme Court. and also whether you want to have about 100 more Waco type stand offs with militias and retaliatory McVeigh type terrorist attacks. frequent mass shootings are probably collectively less deadly than disarming US militants would be. I unironically think the US governments relation with far militia groups is similar to the relationship between the ISI and the Taliban, except that former would utilize these far right groups to suppress any potential leftist challenge to the status quo, whilst the other is concerned with a possible war with India.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Samuel posted:It's almost sixty times more likely that an American will use his or her weapon to defend against a home invasion or robbery than it is to be used in a murder. I'd love to see the source on that because that sounds like absolute bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
my kink is shooting bullets through my scrotum don't kinkshame me
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Samuel posted:It's almost sixty times more likely that an American will use his or her weapon to defend against a home invasion or robbery than it is to be used in a murder. I heard it was 6 times more likely they would kill someone else or themselves accidentally than use it in self defence
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Clearly "well-regulated" means under EPA guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Having guns to even the field against the government hasn't mattered since the advent of armor. Have fun shooting your AR15 at an Abrams. You have more power in your social media now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Tarkus posted:I'd love to see the source on that because that sounds like absolute bullshit. I don't know about six times but according to a CDC study “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent Only a fraction of criminal offensive uses would be actual murder so I can believe it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:well-regulated just meant it was in working order. The amendment is saying that there needs to be a right to bear arms if you don't want a lovely rear end militia that has to beat down red-coats and indians with cudgels. it's funny how people take regulated to mean regulations but then get mad when you say the nazis were socialist because they were national socialists it's almost as it words can have multiple connotations and shades of meaning, gee whiz
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Having guns to even the field against the government hasn't mattered since the advent of armor. Have fun shooting your AR15 at an Abrams. You have more power in your social media now. the libyan revolution didn't kill gaddafi with tweets, dumbass
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
PleasureKevin posted:I heard it was 6 times more likely they would kill someone else or themselves accidentally than use it in self defence I heard if you fire a gun into your butthole right before orgasm it becomes ten times more intense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:I heard if you fire a gun into your butthole right before orgasm it becomes ten times more intense. do i like sit on the gun "long ways" and pull the trigger with me toe or something? asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Having guns to even the field against the government hasn't mattered since the advent of armor. Have fun shooting your AR15 at an Abrams. You have more power in your social media now. The founding fathers could never have imagined that such mass communication was possible in their day and age where broadsheets and loud-talking were the most effective means of communicating an idea. Obviously, the first amendment was never meant to allow for such "social media" as this. Also, cellphones kill more people and are used in conjunction with more crimes than firearms, so you should have to apply with the sheriff's department for permission to have one, imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Having guns to even the field against the government hasn't mattered since the advent of armor. Have fun shooting your AR15 at an Abrams. You have more power in your social media now. the national guard has tanks as well regardless of how pointless you or anyone thinks the second amendment is, there is an overwhelming amount of case law affirming the interpretation that it restricts the government from arbitrarily preventing people from having guns that being said I'd be totally in favour of just scrapping the entire constitution and writing a new one, and I don't see any particular reason to include any version of the second amendment
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:22
|
|