I like guns. I have a bunch of them.

[StanScratch]

I shot a gun once, it was pretty cool, then I moved on.

 

[luvsemlarge]

No we can't. The second amendment was not intended for stockpiling of arsenals. It was intended for the earliest of Americans to be able to defend against foreign enemies and defend their property. There was not mass law enforcement back then. What do you want next, suitcase nukes? Militias were organized from the citizenry and all needed their own personal weapons. The second amendment has been bastardized by the NRA and the gun lobby. How's that for a Neo-con for ya?

The Second Amendment is very clear what it says. You, are the one bastardizing it.

 

[Facetious]

What do you want next, suitcase nukes?

What do you want?

 

[Mayhem]

No we can't. The second amendment was not intended for stockpiling of arsenals. It was intended for the earliest of Americans to be able to defend against foreign enemies and defend their property. There was not mass law enforcement back then. What do you want next, suitcase nukes? Militias were organized from the citizenry and all needed their own personal weapons. The second amendment has been bastardized by the NRA and the gun lobby. How's that for a Neo-con for ya?

And now it's been bastardized by you. The 2nd Amendment protects the citizen from its own government. External enemies, crime and/or hunting have nothing to do with our 2nd Amendment protections. (Sorry for my original sentence. I'm not swinging at you, but it's important that this is perceived correctly)

 

[ragincaucasian]

OP is a faggot

 

[luvsemlarge]

LOL!

 

[luvsemlarge]

OP is a faggot

And with that comment, you just lost your composure, and the argument. Debate much???

 

[ragincaucasian]

what's to debate?

OP is an attention whoring faggot

 

[lurkingdirk]

what's to debate?

OP is an attention whoring faggot

Don't beat around the bush...How do you really feel?

 

[ragincaucasian]

 

[lurkingdirk]

 

[Jack Davenport]

The Second Amendment is very clear what it says. You, are the one bastardizing it.

I know just a little about the Constitution. It's not what it says, it's how it is interpreted. I wish it were as simple as "what it says". I agree with you on some things but unless you have studied the Constitution extensively don't insult my intelligence. I have worked very hard for my education.

 

[Jack Davenport]

And now it's been bastardized by you. The 2nd Amendment protects the citizen from its own government. External enemies, crime and/or hunting have nothing to do with our 2nd Amendment protections. (Sorry for my original sentence. I'm not swinging at you, but it's important that this is perceived correctly)

And the NRA uses crime statistics and hunter's rights as their canard for second Amendment rights.
Again, it comes down to interpretation. And those that interpret it. That is why judges and justices go through so much scrutiny in the confirmation process. There are those that agree with you. And there are those that agree with me. C'est la vie

 

[Mayhem]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220476/gun-shy-liberals/jonah-goldberg

The article is from 2007, but very relevant.

Of course, there has always been a minority of liberals who’ve shown a willingness to admit, often reluctantly, that the Constitution can approve of something they disapprove of. Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley famously quoted a colleague as saying, “If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.” And in 1989, Sanford Levinson penned a Yale Law Review article tellingly titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, “perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something … For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing.” Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.

“It’s true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now,” Wittes concedes. “That doesn’t bother me. It should be hard to take away a constitutional right.”

The article is brief and easy to read. Take a look.

 

[luvsemlarge]

I know just a little about the Constitution. It's not what it says, it's how it is interpreted. I wish it were as simple as "what it says". I agree with you on some things but unless you have studied the Constitution extensively don't insult my intelligence. I have worked very hard for my education.

I'm not going to tip-toe around how I interpret the Second Amendment because you might get your intelligence insulted. That's an issue you need to take up with a therapist. If you don't want to hear what others have to say on it, stay out of the conversation. Move along.

All I know is, it says what it says. And, the authors were very clear what they MEANT it to mean when they wrote it. It's been disected, studied, challenged, and the Supreme Court recently gave their interpretation of it, ruled on it, and as far as I'm concerned, end of story.

I have the right to bear arms. That right cannot be taken away from me. It surely doesn't say that EVERYONE must bear arms. It simply means as a citizen, I have the right to do so.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I'm not going to tip-toe around how I interpret the Second Amendment because you might get your intelligence insulted. That's an issue you need to take up with a therapist. If you don't want to hear what others have to say on it, stay out of the conversation. Move along.

All I know is, it says what it says. And, the authors were very clear what they MEANT it to mean when they wrote it. It's been disected, studied, challenged, and the Supreme Court recently gave their interpretation of it, ruled on it, and as far as I'm concerned, end of story.

I have the right to bear arms. That right cannot be taken away from me. It surely doesn't say that EVERYONE must bear arms. It simply means as a citizen, I have the right to do so.

I voiced my opinion on the Second Amendment. I never said no one should bear arms. I never said that guns should be taken away. The Constitution is one of the most brilliantly crafted documents in history. But that does not mean that it is flawless. Simply put, some parts of it do not hold the same meaning today as it did when it was first written. The main thing that sticks in your craw is my criticism of the NRA. I know you are a card carrying member and good on you, the government is not coming to your door with ATF agents to take your weapons.

You have been, and still are, being sold a bill of goods by the gun lobby.

 

[Jack Davenport]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220476/gun-shy-liberals/jonah-goldberg

The article is from 2007, but very relevant.







The article is brief and easy to read. Take a look.

I read the article. Thanks for the link. This is typical Jonah Goldberg and he does a good job espousing that POV. If Laurence Tribe can fuck up, anyone can. He is a brilliant man.

 

[bodie54]

the government is not coming to your door with ATF agents to take your weapons.

You have been, and still are, being sold a bill of goods by the gun lobby.

Yep.

 

[Mayhem]

Simply put, some parts of it do not hold the same meaning today as it did when it was first written.

This is where we disagree in a massively polar way. All parts os the Bill o' Rights are as relevant as they have ever been. That is the genius of the document and those who framed it. This is not blithe fanaticism, I read it regularly. The are no 21st Century holes to poke in it. And the 2nd Amendment is as clear as it ever was.

 

[Jack Davenport]

This is where we disagree in a massively polar way. All parts os the Bill o' Rights are as relevant as they have ever been. That is the genius of the document and those who framed it. This is not blithe fanaticism, I read it regularly. The are no 21st Century holes to poke in it. And the 2nd Amendment is as clear as it ever was.

We will have to agree to disagree. One of the most brilliant parts of the Constitution is Article V. And the framers had the genius to include it.