Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Pages: 1 … 59 60 61 62 63 … 175

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

2013-01-10 18:32:58

#1501

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5684|Ventura, California

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

actually many rulings by the supreme court on the 2nd amendment explicitly give the government the right to regulate and restrict weapons. Try again.
Yeah Ken I'm really glad the Supreme Court has always ruled in tune with the Constitution. The U.S. Government would never infringe on our Constitutional rights.

Try again
I forgot, you aren't a US citizen are you? I probably shouldn't have assumed you know how the three branches of the US government work. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret and rule on laws enacted by the legislative branch. Their job is to, well, rule whether or not something is constitutional, ie, ruling in tune with the constitution. The US government is a broad term covering all branches of government. As an example, let's look at 'Obamacare'. The legislature (Congress) wrote the law, the executive (Obama) signed the law, and the Supreme Court (Judicial) ruled whether or not it was constitutional.

Humans are never wrong, and collectively humans are always more intelligent. Never mind that the Supreme Court might not completely understand how it is supposed to be. Oh isn't it nice to be elected for life in a comfy government position where you have the power to say whether or not something is Constitutional. Yeah I don't think they'd be biased.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2013-01-10 19:21:25

#1502

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,054|6833|Little Bentcock

So basically by your logic you could be wrong about this so you should probably stop being so silly.

2013-01-10 19:43:30

#1503

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5684|Ventura, California

Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2013-01-10 19:46:01

#1504

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.

There's nothing in the constitution that says the government can buy the Louisiana territory either.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2013-01-10 19:50:36

#1505

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.

And the constitution says the gov can't just wiretap and invade your privacy without a warrant.

oh wait patriot act lulz.

2013-01-10 19:51:18

#1506

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6985|Noizyland

Either way the Constitution is open to interpretation and can be changed.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2013-01-10 19:52:03

#1507

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

or the time lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he shouldnt.

2013-01-10 20:09:55

#1508

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5246|Massachusetts, USA

Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.
And the constitution says the gov can't just wiretap and invade your privacy without a warrant.

oh wait patriot act lulz.

BUT WHAT IF ONE OF US IS A TERRORIST, HOW WOULD WE KNOW. IT COULD BE ANYONE AT ANYTIME

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2013-01-10 20:21:56

#1509

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5796

Ty wrote:
Either way the Constitution is open to interpretation and can be changed.

Being on our first one as well as being isolated from Europe, I think most Americans believe that the constitution is both a sacred document and something that only America has. Because we consider it unique and sacred there is absolutely nothing that can ever be changed in or removed from it.

Not that shifty is an American or anything. He is a foreigner after all.

2013-01-10 20:37:56

#1510

Narupug: Fodder Mostly; +150|5807|Vacationland

Cybargs wrote:
or the time lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he shouldnt.

War powers give the president a lot of power, would actually say that Lincoln was within his Constitutional powers on that one.

Macbeth wrote:
Ty wrote:
Either way the Constitution is open to interpretation and can be changed.
Being on our first one as well as being isolated from Europe, I think most Americans believe that the constitution is both a sacred document and something that only America has. Because we consider it unique and sacred there is absolutely nothing that can ever be changed in or removed from it.

Not that shifty is an American or anything. He is a foreigner after all.

Which of course doesn't make it true.

Throughout American history, whenever pretty much anything monumental is about to happen, the opposition always says "You're not allowed to do that." For example, if you take a strict view of the Constitution, you can argue that the Supreme Court's right to declare laws unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional.

Before I progress further down this tangent, I am going to stop myself.

2013-01-10 20:42:21

#1511

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5753|Toronto

Narupug wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
or the time lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he shouldnt.
War powers give the president a lot of power, would actually say that Lincoln was within his Constitutional powers on that one.

Macbeth wrote:
Ty wrote:
Either way the Constitution is open to interpretation and can be changed.
Being on our first one as well as being isolated from Europe, I think most Americans believe that the constitution is both a sacred document and something that only America has. Because we consider it unique and sacred there is absolutely nothing that can ever be changed in or removed from it.

Not that shifty is an American or anything. He is a foreigner after all.
Before I progress further down this tangent, I am going to stop myself.

Trust me, the tangents in constitutional law are the only interesting part about it. Don't you think debating this for 200 years lends itself to saying something other than "but is that what's really written?!" Maybe you should ask why we have to even ask that initial question.

Didn't Jefferson want it rewritten every 19 years or something? I think we should consider trying it once after 200 years.

Last edited by Pochsy (2013-01-10 20:44:01)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2013-01-10 21:08:28

#1512

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5684|Ventura, California

Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.
And the constitution says the gov can't just wiretap and invade your privacy without a warrant.

oh wait patriot act lulz.

That is my point genius, thanks for proving it for me!

The government is constantly infringing on the U.S. Constitution. So like I said, you proved my point.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2013-01-10 21:22:33)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2013-01-10 21:31:46

#1513

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.
And the constitution says the gov can't just wiretap and invade your privacy without a warrant.

oh wait patriot act lulz.
That is my point genius, thanks for proving it for me!

The government is constantly infringing on the U.S. Constitution. So like I said, you proved my point.

ok mr constitutional lawyer

2013-01-10 22:31:47

#1514

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5684|Ventura, California

It doesn't take a Constitutional lawyer to put 2 and 2 together. The Prez picks who he wants on the Supreme Court for life (IIRC) and those people are cradled by government care and don't have a woe in the world. They are biased politicians like anybody else in a political environment with power. There are news articles regularly reporting on laws put into place that are unconstitutional.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2013-01-11 02:38:10

#1515

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

-Sh1fty- wrote:
It doesn't take a Constitutional lawyer to put 2 and 2 together. The Prez picks who he wants on the Supreme Court for life (IIRC) and those people are cradled by government care and don't have a woe in the world.

He can't you jackass. derp.

2013-01-11 04:45:14

#1516

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Doesn't congress vote on it n shit?

Fuck Israel

2013-01-11 04:54:24

#1517

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

Dilbert_X wrote:
Doesn't congress vote on it n shit?

president picks the supreme court justices.

2013-01-11 05:27:00

#1518

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

There we go.

"The President of the United States appoints justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."[66] Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co … nfirmation

Fuck Israel

2013-01-11 05:43:28

#1519

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6900|Tampa Bay Florida

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Explain to me why my logic would be wrong. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government should have authority to restrict certain types of weapons.
And the constitution says the gov can't just wiretap and invade your privacy without a warrant.

oh wait patriot act lulz.
That is my point genius, thanks for proving it for me!

The government is constantly infringing on the U.S. Constitution. So like I said, you proved my point.

The Constitution also says that black people are not fully human, only three-fifths to be more precise.

It also says mentions a well regulated militia.

2013-01-11 05:46:20

#1520

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6900|Tampa Bay Florida

-Sh1fty- wrote:
It doesn't take a Constitutional lawyer to put 2 and 2 together. The Prez picks who he wants on the Supreme Court for life (IIRC) and those people are cradled by government care and don't have a woe in the world. They are biased politicians like anybody else in a political environment with power. There are news articles regularly reporting on laws put into place that are unconstitutional.

In some ways, yes, they are politicians. It's impossible to completely sever the judicial branch from political influence. However, the reason they are appointed for life, as opposed to every five years, is precisely to AVOID some nutjob from clearing house and appointing a bunch of Nazi's. You're not really offering any meaningful alternative.

Cybargs wrote:
or the time lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he shouldnt.

Ok Mr. Expert. Tell me, how was habeas corpus doing south of the mason dixon?

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-01-11 05:50:38)

2013-01-11 06:10:59

#1521

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

Spearhead wrote:
It also says mentions a well regulated militia.

Which is the army. But don't miss out the part where it states "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

edit: it's kinda hard to be the moral authority and being "above your enemy" when you suspend liberties, kinda like what churchill did to fascists in WW2. He's doing the exact same thing they would do if they were in power.

Last edited by Cybargs (2013-01-11 06:11:47)

2013-01-11 06:24:47

#1522

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6982|PNW

Sentence structure is SUCH an old argument for the second amendment. We'll never bury the "exclusion of the first part precludes the second part" vs "the second part is independent" slapfight.

e: IMO, there's nothing saying that you HAVE to be in a well-regulated militia to bear arms, so whatever.

2013-01-11 06:32:41

#1523

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6900|Tampa Bay Florida

Cybargs wrote:
Spearhead wrote:
It also says mentions a well regulated militia.
Which is the army. But don't miss out the part where it states "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

edit: it's kinda hard to be the moral authority and being "above your enemy" when you suspend liberties, kinda like what churchill did to fascists in WW2. He's doing the exact same thing they would do if they were in power.

We already regulate machine guns, I think from a 1934 law. Is that unconstitutional?

Also, for some reason everytime someone posts a penn and teller it somehow invalidates their argument. Do you agree with 100 percent of what they have ever said on their show? Why are you giving a bunch of stand up comics so much influence as opposed to someone else who has actually studied this shit? Relying on them for legal advice is a pretty bad idea.

Last edited by Spearhead (2013-01-11 06:37:00)

2013-01-11 08:05:46

#1524

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6433|Escea

Haud on, one moment.

*Dons Bearsuit*

Alright. It'd make more sense to ban any weapon over a particular length, and not just barrel length, total length, unless you can prove you have a genuine need for something like a hunting rifle, and by that I mean one purpose built for hunting not something designed to blow away squaddies in quick succession. A weapon for personal defence should be a pistol or revolver at most, not a combat rifle.

2013-01-11 09:26:30

#1525

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6926

M.O.A.B wrote:
Haud on, one moment.

*Dons Bearsuit*

Alright. It'd make more sense to ban any weapon over a particular length, and not just barrel length, total length, unless you can prove you have a genuine need for something like a hunting rifle, and by that I mean one purpose built for hunting not something designed to blow away squaddies in quick succession. A weapon for personal defence should be a pistol or revolver at most, not a combat rifle.

Most firearm crime is committed by a pistol due to their ease of concealment. Only at the last two major shootings (aurora and sandy hook) has AR's ever been used to such effect. It's usually pistols that's always been involved.

edit: or someone can give their reason as "DEFENDING MY RIGHT FROM GUBMENT WHOS GONNA TAKE AWAY OUR LIBERTIES AND FREEDUMS"

That's kinda the whole point of the second amendment.

Last edited by Cybargs (2013-01-11 09:28:19)

Pages: 1 … 59 60 61 62 63 … 175

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ty wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Ty wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Ty wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Board footer