1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Gator, Oct 1, 2015.

Page 11 of 78
  1. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yep. Because the Constitution is a horseshit reason not to adopt far more restrictive gun laws.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2015
    cranberry, Oct 2, 2015
    #121
  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Run along, rev. Your reductio ad absurdum pitch is going to need a lot of work in the Instructional League.
     
    doctorquant, Oct 2, 2015
    #122
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No, no. It's actually a fair enough question. Where's the line?
     
    Dick Whitman, Oct 2, 2015
    #123
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Citizens should be able to arm themselves to the same degree as municipal police departments.

    Alma is right in one regard. You can't say that there's no reason for the average citizen to possess certain weapons if the local police department is handing out these very same weapons.
     
    YankeeFan, Oct 2, 2015
    #124
  5. Chef2

    Chef2 Well-Known Member

    Unbelievable.

    [​IMG]
     
    Chef2, Oct 2, 2015
    #125
  6. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    How many Jews were shot?
     
    Songbird, Oct 2, 2015
    #126
    Baron Scicluna likes this.
  7. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Your post disappoints me. I thought you were hip to market dynamics.

    The reason bazookas are so hard to obtain is because there aren't a bunch of them in surplus after the police get done using them. There's no supply and little demand.

    That's because the police don't have them often and their value is dubious.

    This gun debate is much more about our law enforcement culture than we want to admit. And more about the drug war, too. And, yes, our entertainment, too. And, yes, the individualistic nature of our republic.
     
    Alma, Oct 2, 2015
    #127
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Next time someone spouts off about how horrible the Iran nuke deal is, I'll just come back with, "Hey, they're just exercising their right to bear arms. What, all of the sudden you want to deny that?"
     
    BTExpress, Oct 2, 2015
    #128
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The Bill of Rights breaks down into individual rights -- based on philosophical ideas about what makes a man free. Things like freedom of speech, religion, etc.

    And secondly, are rights of the people as a whole. The second amendment, as much as it has been perverted since by people who insist on making it into something it wasn't ever meant to be, falls under the latter. It prefaces itself with the need for a militia -- the right of the people as a whole to form an army to protect themselves. It doesn't vest that right on individuals, but in "the people." -- it's exact words. It was about the individual states -- in a country that was formed with a weak centralized government -- having the right to raise armies to protect themselves. Nothing more.

    It is the PEOPLE'S right. ... not the right of EVERY PERSON, which was the language used when spelling out all of the individual rights.

    Forget that historical truth, though. Even if you really want to insist that the second amendment was put in place to make it a right for every dumbfuck to arm him or herself with deadly weapons, the Constitution can be amended! It has been done 27 times.

    My question would be, why aren't those people who whip out the Constitution for their reason why guns can't be made illegal, leading the charge to amend the Constitution? With all of the bloodshed guns have caused, if you REALLY believe that the Constitution vests that nonsensical right in individuals, don't you believe the Constitution needs to be fixed?

    I'd argue the Constitution doesn't need to be amended. This is the dumbest made-up right by a bunch of adults who act like children attached to their favorite toy. All of the rights in our Constitution are philosophical in nature to protect actual human rights -- things like a guarantee of a trial by jury, prohibition against the establishment of religion, the right to due process, protection against double jeopardy, the right to counsel in a trial, freedom of speech. Where does "the right" to own something that can kill a person (and is being used to kill people over and over again) fit in with those rights?

    Even if you want to nonsensically argue it does, then why aren't you leading the charge to amend the Constitution -- which clearly created a "right" (as you see it) that has been immensely destructive?
     
    The Big Ragu, Oct 2, 2015
    #129
    schiezainc, Killick, Stoney and 1 other person like this.
  10. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    To what controversy? That the kind of laws being advocated for -- in essence a complete ban -- are obviously unconstitutional? Sorry, "Since I can't have a WMD why would banning all guns be unconstitutional?" is bush league, bro.
     
    doctorquant, Oct 2, 2015
    #130
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    But, we should emphasize, definitely NOT a right to life.
     
    doctorquant, Oct 2, 2015
    #131
    SpeedTchr likes this.
  12. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    I'm sure those people who jumped off of the World Trade Center towers were cowards, too.
     
    JohnHammond, Oct 2, 2015
    #132
Page 11 of 78
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page