• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another School Shooting

jt512 said:
Because one of the main reasons for owning a gun is to protect yourself and your family from attack at home. To defend yourself against a home invasion your gun to be loaded and quickly accessible.
Click to expand...

Nope. You need to invest in stronger doors, if you are worried about a home invasion. if you only invest in ways to quickly kill people that's where your real interest lies.
 
Trausti said:
Do you feel that way about all the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

It's not treated as the Holy Document like the Constitution is, but the same applies.

Laws change with the times and every constitution and Bill of Rights in every country should change as the situation requires it, and if you don't think guns are a problem in America, then there's no discussion to be had.
 
Trausti said:
Do you feel that way about all the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the National Guard. We have a problem with Baby Killer Clarence misreading the 2A based on the instructions of the people he whores himself out to.
 
arthwollipot said:
So vote for some people who will make some new ones. Better ones.
Click to expand...


As long as this Supreme Court is sitting, it doesn't much matter what gun laws are passed. They will be held to be unconstitutional. This SC has ruled that unless a gun law adheres closely to the text of the Second Amendment, it must reflect how guns were historical regulated. My admittedly non-expert interpretation of that is: "Read my lips. No new gun laws."
 
Trausti said:
LOL. In the UK people are thrown into jail for Tweets.
Click to expand...
Oh. That would explain the incarceration rate being more than three times higher than the US.

Oh, no, wait. It's the other way around. Puzzling.

Freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Because nothing says your rights are guaranteed like the paranoid feeling you need to be ready to shoot transgressors your own damned self.
 
Trausti said:
LOL. In the UK people are thrown into jail for Tweets. Freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
Jack by the hedge said:
Oh. That would explain the incarceration rate being more than three times higher than the US.

Oh, no, wait. It's the other way around. Puzzling.
Click to expand...


That is such idiotic reasoning that I don't even think there is a named fallacy for it.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
As long as this Supreme Court is sitting, it doesn't much matter what gun laws are passed. They will be held to be unconstitutional.

This SC has ruled that unless a gun law adheres closely to the text of the Second Amendment, it must reflect how guns were historical regulated. My admittedly non-expert interpretation of that is: "Read my lips. No new gun laws."
Click to expand...
Predicting the future now? You don't know that.

Anyway, the gun plan I have outlined in response to your assertion that nobody has a plan will outlast the current Supreme Court.
 
Trausti said:
LOL. In the UK people are thrown into jail for Tweets. Freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

And there are no laws about incitement to violence or similar in other jurisdictions? Conspiracy? Hate speech?

You could have stopped at "freedom of speech is meaningless", as we seem to have so many, fluctuating, definitions of it as to render use of the term pretty meaningless.
 
Trausti said:
LOL. In the UK people are thrown into jail for Tweets. Freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Not only that's not what 2A says about it, but OK, I'll bite...

And how do guns help there? Do you think a guy who's accused of inciting violence, should prove it by starting shooting at the cops? How does that make it any better? :p

Oh, you mean people should revolt and yada yada. Well, even in the USA, which likes to use that rhetoric a lot, that's not what happens, is it? What happens is that some loony picks up a gun and starts shooting up the school (or workplace, convention, clinic, etc) to show those darned X what's what. Where X is whatever group they had a beef with.

How's that making it any better?

Plus, historically, gun ownership doesn't even have that much to do with ensuring freedom of speech. As a trivial example, Nazi Germany DIDN'T actually take people's guns away; it actually encouraged more gun ownership. Did that preserve freedom of speech? In what universe? The mirror universe from ST where Spock had a beard? :p
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
We all know that's a joke. The very short definition of the amendment is open to several interpretations. The conservative courts choose the interpretation that aligns with their political views.
Click to expand...


Should be vs. is. What we "know" notwithstanding, it is, for now, the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom