The 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maelstrom, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Banned

    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    23
    [​IMG]

    Justice Scalia is arguably one of the most conservative justices on the court and an adamant supporter of the Constitution and gun rights and even he recognizes that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.
     
  2. verminous_plague

    verminous_plague Banned

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    Guns really don't have much use against fighter jets, tanks, and nuclear bombs. BUT with that being said i'd rather put up a good fight with some assault weapons and bazookas.
     
  3. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    Doesn't the second amendment specifically mention "muskets" as the weapon of rights to bare arms? That's be a laugh.

    hey dere bruz i need some crack
    nah cuz no crack 4 fo u
    lemme just load my gun powder b4 i shoot ya
     
  4. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Fat fuck Scalia is a New World Order scumbag who works for the people who want to ban all guns, so of course he would say that. He is far from a true constitutional conservative. He isn't conservative at all. He is NWO scum.
     
  5. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    Is he wrong?


    "Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that -- but the text of the statute.

    Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. So --"

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said
     
  6. QueerPoet

    QueerPoet Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    200
    Nothing is absolute. And even though the Amendments are necessary to protect our rights (and lives), you have to wonder about an Amendment that often helps unbalanced people to harm and kill innocent people. But we are not supposed to wonder - we are told to blindly accept that violence and guns are a necessary evil.

    QP
     
  7. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Banned

    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    23
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ng-22-year-old-who-drove-into-wrong-driveway/

    Simply another reason why guns need to be regulated.
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    To me the problem with the argument that guns protect American citizen’s rights is that it is mirage, a smokescreen used to mislead and distract them from actually protecting their rights.

    Here is the long argument - Can guns save you from suppression?
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=3658951&postcount=1

    I’ll give the short version

    Guns can give people a false sense of power they are told that guns will protect their rights so they feel that having a gun protects their rights and they stop doing anything real to protect their rights. So they will go along with suppressive measure they approve of, in the belief they have the guns to protect themselves if the ‘government’ comes for them, and they wave there guns in a threatening way in support of politics that in my opinion would likely be suppressive.

    For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the German Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

    The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some Jews had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

    Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry?


    What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police; do you think they would have got general and popular support?

    What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and threatened those that had come to take them away?

    So many on the gun supporting right of America is willing to support suppression when they are taught go along with it.

    The thing is that in Europe before WWII there had been long years of anti-jewish propaganda, this softened up the Germans and others (think Russian pogroms(1) to go along with anti-Jewish measures.

    Now I’m not claiming direct comparison but in the US there has been long years of anti-left wing propaganda and there was basically a political pogrom in the US of left wing views from the 1940’s to today so that now measures that are right of centre come to be called ‘socialist’ and with dark mutterings from the right about guns being needed to stop the left winger Marxists from taking over (2). And at least one right wing libertarian has come out and said that while he believes in peoples rights he’d be happy to see ‘communists’ persecuted.

    So while there is much talk from the armed right wing about ‘freedom’ and ‘protecting right’ I’m not sure whose freedom and whose rights they’d actually protect.

    PS : I know that there are those that see themselves as not of the right who also are pro-gun, but I say if your argument is to protect yourself from ‘government’ again I’d ask - do you think your fellow gun owners would come to protect your left wing Marxist pinko arse if you fired at the police coming to take you away?

    (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_pogroms_in_the_Russian_Empire

    (2)http://www.teaparty.org/19284-19284/
     
  9. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    Likes Received:
    110
    Hardly anyone is claiming otherwise. However, many of us believe that banning so called "assault weapons" is a step too far.
     
  10. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    I like how you have changed the wording to include 'fat fuck'. I would have thought you would have had more sympathy having been a 'fat fuck' yourself once upon a time. He does not work for the people that want to ban all guns. Neither does he want to ban all guns. You sound like a true rabble rouser but you are just nowhere near accurate.
     
  11. McFuddy

    McFuddy Visitor

    Maybe it's like people who quit smoking and then become the most annoying anti-smoking advocates.
     
  12. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    Yeah true. Or just wishing to be purposely insulting. I think his wording changed, so he probably just wanted to spice it up a little.
     
  13. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    No it doesn't, and even if the second amendment was repealed you would still have a right to bare[sic] arms. Too much crack?
     
  14. deviate

    deviate Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Likes Received:
    81
    I don't give a fuck what these corrupted politicians say. I know my rights.
     
  15. GreenGreenGrassofHome

    GreenGreenGrassofHome Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    This just great. Does Balbus put people up to posting threads on this topic?

    I love the perverse logic.

    20 shot magazines are dangerous, so we'll just allow 10 shots.

    Then it will be ban 10s, allow 5s.

    Then it will be ban all repeating guns

    Then it will be ban all guns.

    What then? What inanimate objects will the social meddlers blame for the evils of society that must be addressed before any true reform can occur.....will we have a knife ban? Waiting periods before we can acquire a baseball bat? Limits on the number of bats, or how sharp our knives can be? (I'm sorry sir, the law only permits blunt and non-pointed blades)....

    Address drugs, alcohol, violence as an acceptable solution to problems and the disenfrachisement of fringe members of society.

    Then we can talk.
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Green



    Post 139 here

    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7572770#post7572770

    Again this is what I term as the natural born killers argument.

    This seems to be the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill, kill, kill. That its not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans, that the same amount of carnage would go on because Americans are so much more bloodthirsty than other people.

    When you think your fellow citizens are like that it is no wonder that so many Americans are so frightened.

    But why do they think that is it true?

    Are Americans truly that different than other people, so much more violent and murderous?

    Now if things are looked at in those terms (that Americans are murderous savages that are just waiting to kill people) then when crime figures are looked at they seem to back up that view.

    For example

    I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

    But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

    But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

    So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons.


     
  17. GreenGreenGrassofHome

    GreenGreenGrassofHome Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Repeating something doesn't increase its validity
     
  18. McFuddy

    McFuddy Visitor

    What was said that was invalid?
     
  19. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    Like I said, is he wrong,

    ...and what rights is he trying to curtail exactly?
     
  20. deviate

    deviate Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Likes Received:
    81
    I just don't like him.

    I mean, that's why you want to ban "assault rifles" right?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice