The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

ppragman said:
I'm not a scholar, but I am literate - which should be enough to understand what the bill of rights allows.
Click to expand...

If you are literate then you would understand the Bill of Rights left out a lot of things that were necessary. Maybe it's necessary now to look further at gun control.
 
Hacker15e said:
Like Colorado and Washington with their recreational cannabis use laws? Or every other state with medicinal marijuana laws?
Click to expand...

Those federal laws are still in place, and the feds can choose to enforce them at any time they choose. But the Obama administration has no desire to enforce them (because secretly they agree that pot should be legal). But if they wanted to enforce the federal law, then Colorado, Washington, and the states with medical marijuana would be helpless to stop the feds from enforcing it.
 
WacoFan said:
It is particularly frustrating arguing with Liberals, isn't it ATN? Plus, those bastards in the news media pushing an agenda that is against ours. Both of those things, just frustrating wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't say that at all. Liberals are just irrational on this issue (and I would possibly say abortion, but I can at least see some reasonability in the position there). Generally, it's the conservatives who behave this way. Things like refusing to acknowledge the science of climate change, or refusing to accept the facts that the drug war has failed, or refusing even to acknowledge evolution or the age of the universe. Talking to a conservative about anything that deals in facts and figures is like beating your head against a wall. Unfortunately, liberals fall into that same category when talking about guns. They just can't get past their fear and ignorance.

As far as the media, you know I have little respect for most of the television media nowadays. But I've seen nothing biased in the New York Times. Sure, the opinion section is slanted to the left, but the hard news isn't.
 
Seggy said:
If you are literate then you would understand the Bill of Rights left out a lot of things that were necessary. Maybe it's necessary now to look further at gun control.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're the one who isn't literate, because you fail to comprehend that the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution itself) is to limit the power of the federal government. It is specifically designed to stop people like you from "looking further" at gun control.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Apparently you're the one who isn't literate, because you fail to comprehend that the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution itself) is to limit the power of the federal government. It is specifically designed to stop people like you from "looking further" at gun control.
Click to expand...

OK.

Then how do you explain the fact that the Federal Government through the Constitution and Bill of Rights still allowed slavery and women not to vote, even though the Founders kept saying "all men are created equal".

We went bak and corrected those omissions, maybe it's time we fix some omissions to the 2nd Amendment.
 
Gun nuts are afraid of a possibly dystopian future, meanwhile the rest of us would like to fix the current dystopian reality that there is too much gun violence. Jon Stewart said it best, that the second amendment's right to bear arms is not a free for all for anyone to have whatever ammo they desire.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Those federal laws are still in place, and the feds can choose to enforce them at any time they choose. But the Obama administration has no desire to enforce them (because secretly they agree that pot should be legal). But if they wanted to enforce the federal law, then Colorado, Washington, and the states with medical marijuana would be helpless to stop the feds from enforcing it.
Click to expand...

Dianna Degette (d- CO) has introduced a bill in the house with bipartisan support that would make federal enforcement illegal of laws which the states have overturned by vote of the people. At the same time, no federal prosecutor will go after the end user.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Seggy said:
OK.

Then how do you explain the fact that the Federal Government through the Constitution and Bill of Rights still allowed slavery and women not to vote, even though the Founders kept saying "all men are created equal".

We went bak and corrected those omissions, maybe it's time we fix some omissions to the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

What you ignore is that those amendments increased freedom, not reduced it. The 13th Amendment freed the slaves. The 14th Amendment expanded their rights by defining citizenship to include them. The 15th Amendment expanded suffrage. And so on. With the exception of Prohibition, no other amendment to our Constitution ever sought to take away rights (and that was later fixed with the 21st Amendment which gave us our rights back). The Amendments have always sought to enhance freedom, not restrict it.

You would do the exact opposite, utilizing our Constitution for a purpose for which it was never intended: to deny rights that have previously been held by the people. That is a complete 180 degree turn from what our country has always been about.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Gun nuts are afraid of a possibly dystopian future, meanwhile the rest of us would like to fix the current dystopian reality that there is too much gun violence. Jon Stewart said it best, that the second amendment's right to bear arms is not a free for all for anyone to have whatever ammo they desire.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's listen to Jon Stewart instead of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Talk about "scholars." :rolleyes:
 
ATN_Pilot said:
What you ignore is that those amendments increased freedom, not reduced it. The 13th Amendment freed the slaves. The 14th Amendment expanded their rights by defining citizenship to include them. The 15th Amendment expanded suffrage. And so on. With the exception of Prohibition, no other amendment to our Constitution ever sought to take away rights (and that was later fixed with the 21st Amendment which gave us our rights back). The Amendments have always sought to enhance freedom, not restrict it.

You would do the exact opposite, utilizing our Constitution for a purpose for which it was never intended: to deny rights that have previously been held by the people. That is a complete 180 degree turn from what our country has always been about.
Click to expand...

You fail to recognize that guns are being used as tools to take away others people right of life.
 
So what 'ammo' did Mr Stewart specifically have an issue with? Was it some of that "exploding armor piercing" ammunition I've been hearing about on the news?
 
"The Amendments have always sought to enhance freedom, not restrict it ... "

Interestingly, the discussions on JC have influenced my thinking about these things.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Gun nuts are afraid of a possibly dystopian future, meanwhile the rest of us would like to fix the current dystopian reality that there is too much gun violence. Jon Stewart said it best, that the second amendment's right to bear arms is not a free for all for anyone to have whatever ammo they desire.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Fine. Let's ban all gun and ammo. When another mass shooting occurs and guns are already banned, then what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top