Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[rjs246]

Booty twaps?

[ice grillin you]

meat bwankets

[phattymatty]

rick mybars

[Seabiscuit36]

Mike Hunt

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Liberal or conservative doesn't have anything to do with this. There has been an over-arching move away from indivual rights by all three branches of the government and I didn't have any faith in this ruling being any different.

Throw this man a parade!

Booty twaps?

Booby twaps.


SUPPLIZE!

[Diomedes]

The constitution is vastly outdated in some respects, this being one of them.   The founding fathers would not have wanted hundreds of millions of people to have access to semi-automatic 9mm pistols, armor piercing .45 bullets, pistols small enough to hide in your underwear.  They could not possibly foresee the firepower--and worse, the democratization of it--when they wrote that.   

Moreover, unlike the activist Supreme Court marjority, I tend to view the amendment in a strictly constructionist, conservative light (much like vigy does on this subject): just like the rest of the bill of rights, the amendment addresses the right of the people to bear arms as a counter balance against the tyranny of government, rather than as a device for power between individuals.   

It is a fact that guns aren't helping anything in this country.  The chief byproduct of America being flooded with guns is world-high numbers of murdered maimed and injured people.  No one can prove how many crimes were prevented because a crook was shot or scared off by a business/resident with a gun, but only rank idiots would argue it happens even a tenth as often as people just flat out murder one another with them.

But whatever.  Things being as they are, I don't advocate for banning guns.  Rusty makes the critical point there..it would simply make criminals out of millions of otherwise sociable citizens.   Americans are married to guns and there is no divorce for this unholy matrimony.

I'm sure it helps you all sleep tight at night knowing I'm armed too.  Armed and high as hell.

[Rome]

Simple Solution, put all taterskins fans into a gas chamber

[ATV]

Where is the end to the gun logic? Where are you supposed to draw the line? Would the "founding fathers" who passed the second amendment have wanted citizens to have the right to carry chain guns? How about nuclear weapons? That's armament too. Maybe they would have been ok with that, with having people allowed to carry personal thermonuclear weapons.

I wouldn't have a problem with the second amendment if people were restricted to carrying the same weaponry that was readily available back then. The problem is technology behind the weaponry advanced while this law behind the weaponry has sat around gathering dust.
 

[Rome]

If a thug criminal piece of shtein can carry a gun illegally, then I should be able to carry one legally.

The end.

[Diomedes]

If a thug criminal piece of shtein can carry a gun illegally, then I should be able to carry one legally.

A thug criminal can't carry a gun illegally.  See...it's illegal.

If they are getting away with it, that's a law enforcement problem, not a constitutional problem. 

[rjs246]

The point is still the same, though Rome didn't articulate it very well.

Getting guns here isn't exactly a challenge, be your methods legal or illegal. As long as our criminals are well armed, you can never fault the law-abiding populace with wanted to arm themselves as well.

[Rome]

A thug criminal can't carry a gun illegally.  See...it's illegal.

[ice grillin you]

If a thug criminal piece of shtein can carry a gun illegally, then I should be able to carry one legally.

this is my thinking on rape

[rjs246]

As far as ATV's point. Well, it's valid, but frankly I don't give a shtein. The amendment was designed to help protect us from an oppressive government. The problem is that over the past century the military technology available to the government has ballooned out of control and now there is no way anyone could ever overthrow the US military through sheer force of arms. This is scary on a certain level, and it also threatens to render the original spirit of the amendment invalid...

BUT, the truth is that around the world we see examples of violent rebellion against entrenched governments all the time. Access to weapons makes this kind of rebellion possible (even if the rebels face long odds) and I would argue that keeping the possibility of rebellion (no matter how futile) alive is the true spirit behind the second amendment. So yeah. There you go.

[Diomedes]

A thug criminal can't carry a gun illegally.  See...it's illegal.

Don't play coy with me dude.  You know exactly what I meant, and that I'm right.  The "thugs can carry guns so I can too" argument is false.  They can't carry guns.  It's illegal. 

You shouldn't be carrying a gun either.  You'll end up hurting yourself or someone else, because you are a fool.  Stick with the 100yard measuring tape.