I see, so if we increase gun control, then health care will go down!
The only irony here is that there is a law in the US that prevents infringement on the right to bear arms, so it's a lot harder to bottle neck the market with legislation. But, there are mountains of laws that make the health care market an artificial market, thus increasing costs. And somehow subsidizing the costs is the solution.
I don't know why comparing the security/ outdoor recreation market to health care makes any sense at all. I guess I would have to indulge myself into the left/right paradigm to go along with these straw man arguments.
The constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is a part of the right to maintain a militia. There is no indication that everyone has the right to own arms.
That's because it's implied. Take away the right for ordinary citizen to own arms and you contradict the clause. And, it would be redundant to spell it out the way you assume it should.
Oh, and I suppose it was "implied" that slavery was constitutional as well.
Banning guns for ordinary citizens would in no way contradict the clause, which specifies the right to maintain a militia. In other words, those citizens who are members of the militia would have the right to bear arms. This is as clear as crystal to anyone who knows proper English.
It does contradict it because anyone that knows how to reason logically understands that the clause serves the purpose of preventing barriers to entry when it comes to defending one's land, and the right to bear arms is essential to performing that security.
Why you feel the need to restrict people's ability to defend themselves is beyond me.
There is nothing at all in that clause that suggests a "purpose of preventing barriers to entry when it comes to defending one's land." The clause refers to maintaining a militia. That much is very clear indeed. All you're doing is reading into it. Had the clause meant to address the individual citizen's right to bear arms, there would be no mention of a militia, certainly not at the very beginning
( ... )
So, you're saying the clause has nothing to do with an ordinary citizen's ability to defend his/her land?
What you advocate would only work if you got rid of 100% of all guns. And that's not going to happen. It's not realistic. And, more so, prohibition only leads to giving rise to a black market and increased crime.
On a side note, if any of those theater patrons were concealed carriers, that incident would've most likely ended differently.
So, you're saying the clause has nothing to do with an ordinary citizen's ability to defend his/her land? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. There's not even a hint of this in the clause. It's about militias and their members only. Keep in mind that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, when militias were considered a necesity for defence against native Americans, etc. Now the only militias are those maintained by neo-nazis, white power fanatics, and the KKK. You're unlikely to find that your local township has one, just like you're unlikely to find that your neighbor owns slaves, as the founding fathers did.
Any of the three weapons used in the Aurora shooting were capable of being extremely deadly. There are even sporting events using all of the exact same weapons:
You know what? I've been in that situation. Twice. And like many women before me, no one saved me but myself, and I did it without a weapon or violence. So fuck you.
You people are on the way out. Even Justice Scalia is no longer on your side. You can't accept a single gun law whatsoever, regardless of how many people might be saved. Well, the party's over. We're not going to accept your bullshit argument that we're "politicizing" a TRAGIC MURDER, or what you call an "incident". This time we're fighting back.
But don't worry, you'll still have all your guns. And on that day when you eventually shoot yourself, either by accident or in suicide, I'll be smiling from ear to ear.
I didn't call it an incident in some attempt to minimize what happened. It's just another way of saying occurrence. Our society is built on violence, and you help promote it. Or, maybe you just don't see the irony of putting guns to people's heads, or at least the threat of, to stop law abiding citizens from owning guns.
But, you're fighting back alright. You just got the wrong enemy. Hopefully, you're this outraged at punitive parenting.
Because, if you really want to move society away from the violent behavior, that would be the best place to start since society is a reflection of child rearing practices.
But, no, your bright idea is to focus on the symptoms while making scapegoats out of gun owners.
You know nothing about my life. To assume from a blog comment that the only issue I actively pursue is gun CONTROL (not gun elimination, as you seem to fear). Parenting is another, as are healthcare, education, and the current tax code, which claims more from income earned from actually working than income earned purely from investments. That's currently my biggest issue
( ... )
You're going after law abiding citizens due to a crisis that has nothing to do with them. What sense does that even make?
That's what people oppose. Hell, it's just like going after Iraq because of 9/11. It's completely absurd.
Even if you succeed at getting more gun "control," do you really think that's going to help at all? You'll have your warm, fuzzy sense of victory. But, in the end, it's not going to amount to anything in reality because CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!
It's going to be as hard to get guns as it is to get weed. And somehow to you that's a valid solution to criminal behavior.
Maybe if you put this much energy in dealing with real issues, then shit would actually get done. But instead you waste your time on these self-righteous causes that amount to nothing but a bunch of circle jerking. "Yeah! High Five! We finally scored a victory against our made up enemy!"
Owning a gun is a personal preference. And you go around imposing your personal preference on others via force. It's disgusting.
Oh, so parenting, education, healthcare and taxation aren't real issues? Bad parents, bad education, medical & pharmaceutical companies that clean up at the expense of patients and the wealthy who get a free ride tax-wise are all made-up enemies?
You've obviously spend too much time in your gun shack with the other hillbillies.
Don't you have anything more productive to do? I certainly do, and I refuse to waste any more time with an idiot like you.
Yes, hippy, those are much better issues to spend your time on. But, I seriously doubt I'd agree with your solutions given that the government is the last place I'd turn to in order to solve complex social issues.
This could've been a much nicer conversation if you didn't go around thinking everyone that disagrees with you as idiots, and thus addressing them with passive-aggressive, cunty behavior.
If there is a next time, maybe we can have a nicer conversation.
The only irony here is that there is a law in the US that prevents infringement on the right to bear arms, so it's a lot harder to bottle neck the market with legislation. But, there are mountains of laws that make the health care market an artificial market, thus increasing costs. And somehow subsidizing the costs is the solution.
I don't know why comparing the security/ outdoor recreation market to health care makes any sense at all. I guess I would have to indulge myself into the left/right paradigm to go along with these straw man arguments.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Banning guns for ordinary citizens would in no way contradict the clause, which specifies the right to maintain a militia. In other words, those citizens who are members of the militia would have the right to bear arms. This is as clear as crystal to anyone who knows proper English.
Reply
Why you feel the need to restrict people's ability to defend themselves is beyond me.
Reply
Reply
What you advocate would only work if you got rid of 100% of all guns. And that's not going to happen. It's not realistic. And, more so, prohibition only leads to giving rise to a black market and increased crime.
On a side note, if any of those theater patrons were concealed carriers, that incident would've most likely ended differently.
( ... )
Reply
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. There's not even a hint of this in the clause. It's about militias and their members only. Keep in mind that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, when militias were considered a necesity for defence against native Americans, etc. Now the only militias are those maintained by neo-nazis, white power fanatics, and the KKK. You're unlikely to find that your local township has one, just like you're unlikely to find that your neighbor owns slaves, as the founding fathers did.
Any of the three weapons used in the Aurora shooting were capable of being extremely deadly. There are even sporting events using all of the exact same weapons:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html
On a side note, if any of those theater patrons were concealed carriers, that incident ( ... )
Reply
Reply
You people are on the way out. Even Justice Scalia is no longer on your side. You can't accept a single gun law whatsoever, regardless of how many people might be saved. Well, the party's over. We're not going to accept your bullshit argument that we're "politicizing" a TRAGIC MURDER, or what you call an "incident". This time we're fighting back.
But don't worry, you'll still have all your guns. And on that day when you eventually shoot yourself, either by accident or in suicide, I'll be smiling from ear to ear.
Reply
But, you're fighting back alright. You just got the wrong enemy. Hopefully, you're this outraged at punitive parenting.
Because, if you really want to move society away from the violent behavior, that would be the best place to start since society is a reflection of child rearing practices.
But, no, your bright idea is to focus on the symptoms while making scapegoats out of gun owners.
Enjoy your witch hunt!
Reply
Reply
That's what people oppose. Hell, it's just like going after Iraq because of 9/11. It's completely absurd.
Even if you succeed at getting more gun "control," do you really think that's going to help at all? You'll have your warm, fuzzy sense of victory. But, in the end, it's not going to amount to anything in reality because CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!
It's going to be as hard to get guns as it is to get weed. And somehow to you that's a valid solution to criminal behavior.
Maybe if you put this much energy in dealing with real issues, then shit would actually get done. But instead you waste your time on these self-righteous causes that amount to nothing but a bunch of circle jerking. "Yeah! High Five! We finally scored a victory against our made up enemy!"
Owning a gun is a personal preference. And you go around imposing your personal preference on others via force. It's disgusting.
Reply
You've obviously spend too much time in your gun shack with the other hillbillies.
Don't you have anything more productive to do? I certainly do, and I refuse to waste any more time with an idiot like you.
Reply
This could've been a much nicer conversation if you didn't go around thinking everyone that disagrees with you as idiots, and thus addressing them with passive-aggressive, cunty behavior.
If there is a next time, maybe we can have a nicer conversation.
Reply
Leave a comment