Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

[cranberry]

Yep. Because the Constitution is a horseshirt reason not to adopt far more restrictive gun laws.

 

[doctorquant]

I can't own certain WMDs without a massively rigorous licensing process.

Is that unconstitutional?

Run along, rev. Your reductio ad absurdum pitch is going to need a lot of work in the Instructional League.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Run along, rev. Your reductio ad absurdum pitch is going to need a lot of work in the Instructional League.

No, no. It's actually a fair enough question. Where's the line?

 

[YankeeFan]

No, no. It's actually a fair enough question. Where's the line?

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.

 

[Chef2]

Unbelievable.

 

[Songbird]

How many Jews were shot?

 

[Alma]

Run along, rev. Your reductio ad absurdum pitch is going to need a lot of work in the Instructional League.

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.

 

[BTExpress]

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?"

 

[The Big Ragu]

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 dumbfork 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?

 

[doctorquant]

No, no. It's actually a fair enough question.

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]

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.

But, we should emphasize, definitely NOT a right to life.

 

[JohnHammond]

This was my school.


This was an act of pure cowardace. Only cowards shoot innocent people. Only cowards take their own life, or do something so malicious that they know someone will do the work for them because they don't have the guts to kill themselves.

I'm sure those people who jumped off of the World Trade Center towers were cowards, too.