Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Is it just me, or did all the really wacky reptilian/space alien/retarded ones start post-60's (RFK, JFK, MLK...) possibly probably in order to discredit the idea of conspiracies?

[Suu]

Just add "... because of reptilian shape shifters" to any explanation that's not kooky enough for ya, then punch it into google and despair 

BOOM!

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2107849/pg1

[P3nT4gR4m]

My work is done here 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, remember in another thread where ECH mentioned that the 2nd Amendment was for slaves?

Bingo. Kai just posted this link.

http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2013/01/20/militias-and-slaves/

Wow, interesting!

[AFK]

Yes, this is an op-ed, but I thought it was an interesting read with some interesting points to consider.  I particularily agree with the last paragraph.


Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute. No right granted by the Constitution is totally exempt from limitations.
The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process. Yet many of the same politicians who champion an absolutist understanding of the Second Amendment tolerate the indefinite military detention of alleged (not proven) terrorists. Just yesterday Charlie Savage reported that lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act dropped a provision that would have barred the military from holding American citizens indefinitely, without trial.
Not even the right to speak is absolute. Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 2008 that "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment." By my lights, "offers to provide or requests to obtain" child pornography are to the First Amendment what "offers to provide or requests to obtain" semiautomatic rifles with 100-round magazines, without so much as a background check, are to the Second Amendment. If your "freedom" threatens children's safety, it's reasonable to restrict it.[/size]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/is-the-second-amendment-absolute/

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute.

Then they aren't rights.

And kiddie porn isn't free speech, it's an overt act.  Thurgood Marshall defined the difference ages ago.  The author of the op-ed is a dumbass.

[AFK]

I'm fine with it not being a right.  I believe it is a "right" that has done more harm than good in this country. 


And honestly, I personally believe it is completely ludicrous that any sensible movement on gun control is being held hostage by some words that were written by some old geezers who died a couple of centuries ago and lived in a world where everyone was running around with fucking muskets.  Sadly, the fuckers set the shit up to make sure it was pretty much impossible to change any of their shit, which has to rank up there with one of the master trolls in history. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm fine with it not being a right.  I believe it is a "right" that has done more harm than good in this country. 

I think you're fine with lots of things not being rights, RWHN.

[AFK]

Such as? 

[Suu]

I read today that some psycho blew up a school in the 1920s.

Blew it up. Killing students, teachers, and first responders. No guns, just explosives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

I can make explosives in my kitchen.


Shall we ban common cleaning chemicals next?  Will I lose my 'right' to clean my house? What about my 'right' to even walk into a school, because anyone going into one could possibly be considered a threat.

Evil will always find a way. Sometimes it's with guns, sometimes it's with dynamite. Ban fireworks. Everywhere. How's that?

[Pæs]

Dear everybody involved in this discussion: What evidence would be required for you to change your position?

[Cain]

Evidence that severe gun regimes are effective in preventing homicides.

Evidence that laissez-faire gun regimes have no impact on the choice of weapon used in the majority of homicides.

Evidence that reasonably strongly regulated regimes, such as France or Switzerland, are worse than either of the above options.

[Suu]

I thought that France and Switzerland weren't really that regulated? It just seems everyone has a gun, and it's normal.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Dear everybody involved in this discussion: What evidence would be required for you to change your position?

I have to be honest here:  My position won't change.  I'm flexible in a lot of things, but not when it comes to rights.  Not because I HAVE TO OWN A GUN or anything, I've gone years without owning one here and there, and never really cared...But rather because I don't like being told what I can and cannot do.

For example, it would never occur to me to do something as childish as burn a flag.  Until someone passes a law saying I can't.  Then I get all kinds of pissy about it.

I'm easy to get along with...Just leave me the hell alone and don't tell me what to do.  If everyone thought like me, there'd never be another war.

Of course, that last bit is true about everyone, now that I think about it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Evidence that severe gun regimes are effective in preventing homicides.

Evidence that laissez-faire gun regimes have no impact on the choice of weapon used in the majority of homicides.

Evidence that reasonably strongly regulated regimes, such as France or Switzerland, are worse than either of the above options.

I think Canada has the right idea.  You can own a rifle or a shotgun, but it's damn near impossible for a private citizen to own a pistol. 

That's not acceptable to me HERE, but it would be THERE.  Why?  Because it's pretty much always been that way there.  The problem I have is that once you start changing the rules, they don't STOP changing, as anyone paying attention since October of 2001 will realize.