Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#71 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,919
  • Reputation: 18,343
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

Do you not understand the 2nd protects your 1st to type this poo? Every amendment you are using is protected by the 2nd amendment.


sweet red herring bro

#72 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:22 PM

"criminals don't follow laws DUHHHHHURRRRR. stupid liberals. i get this and i only have a sixth grade edumurcashun."


Insulting the people you are addressing will immediately turn them off to whatever great points you may have made or will make.

You always have to assume they will eventually begin to respond with reason if you want to make progress with a discussion. Otherwise we are just flailing around saying you are stupid... no you!

#73 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

sweet red herring bro


Of course then this happens god damn it. Can't believe someone would actually think that is some sort of reasonable argument.

#74 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 15-February 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,898
  • Reputation: 229
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:24 PM

It's just finger pointing. Back and forth. America is 50/50 right now.

#75 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,919
  • Reputation: 18,343
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

Insulting the people you are addressing will immediately turn them off to whatever great points you may have made or will make.

You always have to assume they will eventually begin to respond with reason if you want to make progress with a discussion. Otherwise we are just flailing around saying you are stupid... no you!


if you read the post i wrote that in, you'll see that i juxtaposed my annoyance with that specific argument and its prevalence in the debate with my fundamental agreement that it's an important point that needs to be addressed.

#76 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:26 PM

It's just finger pointing. Back and forth. America is 50/50 right now.


No it isn't.

It's political agendas being advanced by exploiting the ability to bring people into an unreasoning frothing rage over an unfortunate and very tragic event.

#77 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:33 PM

if you read the post i wrote that in, you'll see that i juxtaposed my annoyance with that specific argument and its prevalence in the debate with my fundamental agreement that it's an important point that needs to be addressed.


I always read your entire posts. You are always worth reading. Now understand that while I can easily see your point especially considering I was not one being insulted others will be distracted by your insult.

Yes I saw what you said and I agree with you. It MUST be addressed. We need to consider the future of citizen weaponry in this country. We need to start doing it right now.

I don't comment on your posts because you very rarely say anything I disagree with.

In other words by the end of your first paragraph you are already igniting the fuging LIBERALS response.

#78 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,919
  • Reputation: 18,343
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:45 PM

I always read your entire posts. You are always worth reading. Now understand that while I can easily see your point especially considering I was not one being insulted others will be distracted by your insult.

Yes I saw what you said and I agree with you. It MUST be addressed. We need to consider the future of citizen weaponry in this country. We need to start doing it right now.

I don't comment on your posts because you very rarely say anything I disagree with.

In other words by the end of your first paragraph you are already igniting the fuging LIBERALS response.


hmmm... i'll concede the point. thanks for being an objective and clear-thinking dude

#79 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:49 PM

I reject the idea that the 2nd amendment forbids the regulation of what arms can and cannot be owned... until that in particular hits the supreme court we won't know how modern scholars would interpret it, but even Scalia seems to think there is some justification for regulating guns:

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

http://www.nationalj...efid=mostViewed

Even within the 2010 case, it was clear that the majority thought that it was perfectly acceptable to restrict firearms within certain criterion.

I also disagree with people that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the modern day militia, the National Guard. I actually agree with Scalia again RE: the meaning of the militia - that is to say, it had nothing to do with the National Guard as we see it today, but rather, a subset of the population that could be called upon to organize for defense (e.g., law-abiding, "responsible" citizens, else we'd have to allow fellons etc to own guns too?).

Ultimately I think something like an assault weapons ban could be constitutional provided the writers of the ban are capable of showing that the weapons that are banned are not "in common use at the time" or are overly dangerous (see the majority decision, DC vs Heller, 2008)

#80 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:10 PM

mav1234 you are on the right path here.

Ultimately any assault weapon ban will be ruled constitutional whether it is logically consistent with the language within the constitution or not. If there are instances of the writers making exceptions for frightening weapons it just goes to show how poorly written the amendment is.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users