joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
As always you distort everything I said.
No, I am giving you a factual understanding to what your stating. What your stating, would not work for long in a society. It would tear itself up given time. We have a great example of this: The American Civil War. Our country paid a very heavy price to learn from the lessons not understood in the years that led up to that conflict.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
For example, if people needed guns to defend themselves against brigands then they would want the brigands disarmed (or dead)
You do understand the following: Brigands = outlaws/criminals (which is what their definition is...)
Which is why we have an organization, with arms, to combat those outlaws. So that the people, are safe from them.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You seem to have misread the 8th, the phrase "of the people" is not in it.
You, as usual ignore the fact that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment insisted that it was an individual right.
No amount of twisting can change that.
PROVE IT. Not with a piece of paper, but with a video feed. Because you would not believe the reverse....UNLESS....I went back in time, and asked the questions. And they each answer it was a 'collective right' rather than a 'individual right'. An even THEN, you would STILL not believe it. Unless you were right next to me. So we have to 'get cracking' on that time travel car.....
...it just needs to go 88 mph.....
As far as they were consider, under the federalist papers, the only time the individual comes up, is as its related to the make up of the militia as a whole. That individuals make up a militia (which is logical and simple). That individuals could have firearms, but their firearms were not protected from laws and regulations.....UNLESS....their arms were being used directly in conjunction with the militia that they are in good standing with.
Your the one twisting shit around.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
When did I, or for that matter, anyone else say that criminals should be allowed guns? The right to bear arms is one of the rights, like voting, that they give up as part of the penalty for their crimes.
I hate to say it, but criminals have voted. Just because they have broken laws, doesn't mean they cant vote. I see plenty of people with 'NRA' stickers speeding 10-20 mph over the posted limit. Are they law breakers? No. Not until they are found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. Until then, they are 'honest and law abiding citizens'. And they can vote.
I fully agree that criminals should not have any sort of access to weapons. An yet, what was that first time murder with a gun, moments after the jury stated he was guilty? "An honest and law abiding citizen' with a firearm. Those thinking on mass murder with firearms, can obtain them REALLY easily. Its why the FBI states finding the lone wolves before the destruction unfolds is very hard. It is why schools have a much deeper understanding of how each student is performing, whom they associate with, and where they 'live' in the pecking order of their fellow class mates. Its why I advocate for better facilities and trained individuals in our nation's medical centers and Veteran's hospitals (not just the physical pain and stress, but the mental and emotional).
We as a society fully understand how criminals get firearms. How easily it is performed. We as a society even allow the mentally and/or emotional unstable ease of access to firearms. An then there are those Americans that threaten to use the '2nd amendment remedies' on '1st amendment liberals'; how is that NOT threatening? Are any of these concepts the founding fathers had in mind as it related to firearms?
FUCK NO! They never had to contend with any of these things. Yet we in 2015, have to deal with the fallout each time it happens. How many units of twenty of kindergartner students have to be mowed down by some lunatic with a firearm, before we say "Enough is Enough!"? Three times? Five times? Ten Times? Twenty Times? I want an actual answer here, BamaD.
Since a person is innocent until proven guilty we should treat everyone as guilty yep you revere the constitution.
You really dont have an argument. That sentence is your best 'come back' to everything I stated above. Its flimsy, silly, tiny, and ultimately irrelevant. What you don't like, is I made good points. That last one, of little children being mowed down, is the one set of questions you could not handle the most.
You understand well enough, like I do, that the next mass shooting that makes Sandy Hook look pathetic compared to the carnage; no one from gun controllers on over to some/many firearm owners....will give a shit....what gun nuts have to say on ANYTHING. The fallout will be terrible, like the event itself. Do you....REALLY....think anyone on either side of hte spectrum want that?
I ask questions, because I want an answer. Sometimes the best ways forward, started with a good question being asked.
|
RE: Gun sales vs crime stats in CA - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread