Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama's response to gun question

Obama's response to gun question (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You have way more cars than I do. And you know the right that affords you those guns is what costs lives, don't play dumb.
and it's the price for our freedom to bear arms that some may die, like the price for your fresh bread is that some are dying. The price for the diamonds and gold in a woman's engagement ring is that >500 die each year in mining accidents. The price for Alaskan crab legs is that dozens of men will die, lost at sea, every season on boats in the Bering Strait. There are many things we can do to saver lives, but we don't, it's a choice, yet you somehow feel that some are more socially acceptable than others. Personally I place a very high value on the right to bear arms and the ability to resist tyranny, by force if needed, as do most other Americans.

I don't object to suicide if its an informed choice. Its difficult for some to accept but there are circumstances where its actually quite logical. I wouldn't want to be a vegetable in a hospital bed. But there are definitely people who perhaps while intoxicated having had a bad day might pick up a gun and top themselves, where they might have woken up later feeling better. I'm not in favour of that, its no different to getting hit by a bus. It happens, but we put up rails in places where it happens too easily.
Those instances simply don't happen, they're situations that exist for a very long time, people that suffer from physical and/or emotional trauma for years. That they choose to check out is up to them. I may not agree with their decision, I wouldn't do it, but I support their choice.

Farage is a lying turd. Minutes after the result was confirmed he finally admitted one of the biggest tailgates of the leave campaign was a lie.
Migrants are not causing the collapse of the NHS. Thats just more shit from the Daily Fail and The Sun. We aren't going to send people back to Calais because the French won't take them back and so they'll end up trapped in the English Channel and the British people won't stand for that. We're an island, we can't close our borders that easily anyway. If they get trapped at sea, they'll just swim around the border patrols or die trying.

We don't have the money police our whole damn coastline. Its more likely we end up flying them back to whatever country they claim to come from at even more expense. Whatever the system ends up being its a total cluster****. No-one has thought it through.
Admitted to lying? Really? Link to this? Any stats on the NHS? The French must take them back under the EU law, unless they're going to break their treaty. When the UK immigration gates shut the flow will abate, because those migrants will know they aren't welcome anymore, so they'll choose another EU country to receive handouts. But I get that you're pushing the "think of the poor people" line again, so if the wealthy "progressives" are so worried, they can house, feed, and take care of the migrants. They can put them up in some of their spare 5k sq/m homes in Kensington and Chelsea, maybe shuttle them around in their Bentleys and Range Rovers. You know, show them that love they profess to have.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 09:10 AM
 
I've been so busy this past week, I haven't been able to stop in at all until today. I'd like to say that I think asking a lot of these questions is VERY important. And that my own take on this is indeed slanted - but not in the way most people might think.

CDC is part of the Executive Branch, and thus is suspected of having administrative influence and direction alter the scientific impartiality that is needed for real research to be done. I personally do not think that the CDC is the right agency to investigate "the gun problem," because this is not a disease in any way. Congress determined that CDC was not to research "the gun problem" in part because of the potential for lack of impartiality. I deeply respect the entire CDC organization, but I have to agree that this is too emotionally and politically charged an issue to study in the same way that one would study Zika or Ebola.

As to "ignoring" numbers. Not "ignore." Look at the statistics by locale and see which locales have high rates of gun related crime, then correlate that with high rates of drug related crime. Ah. We will see that there is a strong correlation between drug crime and gun crime, while at the same time we see that there is a MUCH lower rate of gun related crime outside those areas. If we do not look at these locales while looking at bulk statistical data, we will get a skewed picture of the prevalence of gun crime overall - which is exactly the way these statistics are being presented.

I do not have "an answer" for much, but I do know that there are many things we can do to reduce the kinds of tragedies we've seen in Virginia and Colorado:

>We can FORCE every state to report ALL the data NICS uses, including "individual committed involuntarily for psychiatric treatment" and "individual has been diagnosed as a danger to himself and others." (Both of those are already public records - court records for involuntary commitment, and "danger to self and others," is legally required to be reported to police in at least 2/3 of the states). Forcing this is as simple as withholding federal funding to state law enforcement (pretty significant $ in most states) until the states comply, much like the national 55MPH speed limit was forced on the states in the 1970s.

>We can stop pretending that inanimate objects jump up and commit mayhem, and start holding individual people responsible, not just when we speak logically about an incident, but when we discuss the cause of the incident. Rhetoric about the "need for more gun laws' seems to revolve around how guns are dangerous, but guns have NEVER done anything by themselves, and aren't any more dangerous than automobiles, power nailers, or sledge hammers - and they're a damnsight less dangerous than chainsaws.

>We can all try to understand how dangerous abridging ANY of our Constitutional rights is. If we're OK with gutting the Second Amendment, which Amendment is next? Fifth? First? If this isn't a "slippery slope" situation, I don't know what is. It's not possible to alter one part of the Constitution without having ripple effects on the rest of the document and society in general. The 18th Amendment is a perfect example: banning alcohol led to huge changes in how the Constitution was interpreted, some of which still resonate today. The first important national gun law, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a Prohibition-inspired law that was supposed to strip gangsters of dangerous weapons, yet the gangsters went about their usual lawless business - ignoring the new law - and the public was saddled with new restrictions that had no effect on gangsterism.

>We can all agree that we should be working toward MORE freedom instead of reining in everyone's freedoms. Freedom from the stigma associated with seeking mental health treatment. Freedom from government intrusion in private issues (like bedrooms and bathrooms). Freedom from false and misleading impressions forced on "the viewing public" by talking heads yammering away as part of the (unnecessary and harmful) "24/7 news cycle".

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
CDC is part of the Executive Branch, and thus is suspected of having administrative influence and direction alter the scientific impartiality that is needed for real research to be done. I personally do not think that the CDC is the right agency to investigate "the gun problem," because this is not a disease in any way. Congress determined that CDC was not to research "the gun problem" in part because of the potential for lack of impartiality. I deeply respect the entire CDC organization, but I have to agree that this is too emotionally and politically charged an issue to study in the same way that one would study Zika or Ebola.
Vaccinations have become a political issue. How long until Zika and Ebola do? Then the CDC should be shut down in case its not impartial enough while its curing diseases?

I think its a stretch to justify the ban this way. Who could be more impartial? A foreign government would be accused of being too close an ally, or a bunch of lefty hippies, any private institution would be subject to the government paying the tab.
Real scientific arguments are made with facts and data. The number of deaths is what it is. If its being skewed or biased then someone should be able to find proof of that too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and it's the price for our freedom to bear arms that some may die, like the price for your fresh bread is that some are dying. The price for the diamonds and gold in a woman's engagement ring is that >500 die each year in mining accidents. The price for Alaskan crab legs is that dozens of men will die, lost at sea, every season on boats in the Bering Strait. There are many things we can do to saver lives, but we don't, it's a choice, yet you somehow feel that some are more socially acceptable than others. Personally I place a very high value on the right to bear arms and the ability to resist tyranny, by force if needed, as do most other Americans.
I don't know why you insist on labouring points that I establish as the basis of my questions. Does it make you feel clever? Do you think it makes you look smarter than me?
I began with the premise that Americans accept there is a price for bearing arms, I was attempting to establish what that price should be. I'm inclined to think you might have already paid more than an uprising would have cost you. It would cost more lives yet even with the guns.

And this price isn't money. You shouldn't be writing off the extra like its just the premium or interest you pay for spreading out the payments. These are human lives.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Those instances simply don't happen
Sure, and people never take acid and try to fly off buildings.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Admitted to lying? Really? Link to this?
Nigel Farage backtracks on Leave campaign's '£350m for the NHS' pledge hours after result | UK Politics | News | The Independent

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The French must take them back under the EU law, unless they're going to break their treaty.
Unlike the British, the French have never been afraid of breaking an EU rule they don't like. They've already started to ask us to come and take over the camps in Calais.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When the UK immigration gates shut the flow will abate, because those migrants will know they aren't welcome anymore, so they'll choose another EU country to receive handouts.
You mean the way that Mexicans never try to get into the US to work illegally? And thats from a country where they have enough food and aren't living in a warzone or under Sharia oppression. They just want a few extra bucks. I'm sure the starving and oppressed won't make any effort to sneak into a country when they only need to be good swimmers to do so. And that assumes the entire rest of the EU seafarers don't feel like helping them out. They don't need to dig tunnels and they won't get shot at if they are caught.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 10:44 AM
 
What's up with the republicans that support the terrorist no-fly list but are against preventing people on this list from getting guns?

Don't trust that the list won't be tainted? Well then, maybe it shouldn't be supported in the first place for your internal consistency?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 10:58 AM
 
WHO trusts that list?? Nobody I know. ANYTIME the government puts its inept hands on ANYTHING they ruin it. The list is secret and procedures to make sure its correct appear to NOT exist. Thats why I don't want it to infringe on my second amendment right. It is typical leftist BS, where they really don't care about an individuals rights. They just don't think that way, and why they are hypocrites.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't know why you insist on labouring points that I establish as the basis of my questions. Does it make you feel clever? Do you think it makes you look smarter than me?
On this particular issue I certainly am. The reason we have the 2A is for insurance, proof against an outcome that is historically inevitable without them. A certain number die so that a much larger number don't. It's just that basic. Now, there's a lot we can do to keep whittling away at that number, and we are, but sadly it will never be bloodless.

I began with the premise that Americans accept there is a price for bearing arms, I was attempting to establish what that price should be. I'm inclined to think you might have already paid more than an uprising would have cost you. It would cost more lives yet even with the guns.
Hardly. Have you ever seen the death toll in China when the communist party came into power? The USSR? Cambodia? Cuba? The USA's allies enjoy peace because we help protect them, and we're protected by our armed citizenry. I don't expect many of you across the pond to understand, but armed Americans are an important part of ensuring democracy in the Western world. 300M firearms is a force that can't be dismissed, and like them or hate them, they aren't going anywhere.

And this price isn't money. You shouldn't be writing off the extra like its just the premium or interest you pay for spreading out the payments. These are human lives.
Yep, they're human lives, but guaranteeing the freedom we value isn't free.

Sure, and people never take acid and try to fly off buildings.
How many? 3, 4, maybe a half dozen in since the 1970s? I have no idea what you're saying, that we shouldn't let people do acid? I'm pretty sure they already know it ****s with your mind.

An advert he didn't write, a point he never said? Did you even watch the video? A great deal of it will go to the NHS, no doubt, but every penny?

Unlike the British, the French have never been afraid of breaking an EU rule they don't like.
So, because the French are law-breakers (some type of outlaw gov't) the UK is simply screwed? That's really your answer? I can think of at least a half dozen ways of diplomatically dealing with that, just off the top of my head, including sanctions and fines. You think they would mess with a UN security council member for long over Calais? Really?

You mean the way that Mexicans never try to get into the US to work illegally? And thats from a country where they have enough food and aren't living in a warzone or under Sharia oppression. They just want a few extra bucks. I'm sure the starving and oppressed won't make any effort to sneak into a country when they only need to be good swimmers to do so. And that assumes the entire rest of the EU seafarers don't feel like helping them out. They don't need to dig tunnels and they won't get shot at if they are caught.
Pretty sure that's due to our 1000s of miles of unprotected border and because we're officially apathetic about letting them in. Have you ever studied geography? Have you seen how far migrants have to go to reach the UK? You think they won't change their minds along the way and go elsewhere if they know the invitations are gone and they have to swim the channel, and even then would be found and deported for all their trouble? Maybe a few, but not nearly the numbers that normally tried before. What, 1 in 15 are actually trying to escape war? The rest simply go to where they can get the most simply for breathing that country's air. While it would be nice to just taken in anyone, it isn't Britain's job to take in anyone who can't provide for themselves.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What's up with the republicans that support the terrorist no-fly list but are against preventing people on this list from getting guns?

Don't trust that the list won't be tainted? Well then, maybe it shouldn't be supported in the first place for your internal consistency?
It's supported for its intended purpose, to keep people off planes. Expanding it to mean more than that unconstitutionally deprives people of due process.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What's up with the republicans that support the terrorist no-fly list but are against preventing people on this list from getting guns?

Don't trust that the list won't be tainted? Well then, maybe it shouldn't be supported in the first place for your internal consistency?
I don't support the no fly list, at least in its current form. I think it's stupid, and the vast majority of people on it shouldn't be.

That said, I think it's a stretch to say you are guaranteed flight under due process of law. It isn't a stretch with guns, because Constitution, or at least SCOTUS rulings to that effect.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
On this particular issue I certainly am. The reason we have the 2A is for insurance, proof against an outcome that is historically inevitable without them. A certain number die so that a much larger number don't. It's just that basic. Now, there's a lot we can do to keep whittling away at that number, and we are, but sadly it will never be bloodless.
Restating the same points over and over in response to points they barely even relate to doesn't make you look smart at all.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Hardly. Have you ever seen the death toll in China when the communist party came into power? The USSR? Cambodia? Cuba?
DIdn't we establish already that the US military isn't about to launch hellfire missiles at crowds of US citizens? Changed your opinion on that one?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The USA's allies enjoy peace because we help protect them, and we're protected by our armed citizenry. I don't expect many of you across the pond to understand, but armed Americans are an important part of ensuring democracy in the Western world. 300M firearms is a force that can't be dismissed, and like them or hate them, they aren't going anywhere.
Oh please. So now you carrying a gun is saving the whole ****ing world? You need a reality check.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yep, they're human lives, but guaranteeing the freedom we value isn't free.
There you go repeating something I've already said to you again, smart guy.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How many? 3, 4, maybe a half dozen in since the 1970s? I have no idea what you're saying, that we shouldn't let people do acid? I'm pretty sure they already know it ****s with your mind.
I'm sorry, I've been debating you while giving you enough credit to assume you will understand a fairly obvious counterpoint without me having to spell it out as I might for a five year old. This is the third point in one post where that credit has proven undeserved.

I'm saying people can shoot themselves dead while intoxicated one night, when they would otherwise have woken the next morning with no such desire to die, had the gun not been to hand in the glove box/nightstand/under the pillow/in a pocket etc.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
An advert he didn't write, a point he never said? Did you even watch the video? A great deal of it will go to the NHS, no doubt, but every penny?
If you watch all the clips he did state on TV that the he would redistribute that money (which isn't as much as £350m as you already know because you stated a lower figure yourself elsewhere) to the NHS or schools.
He waited until after the vote before saying it was a mistake. And only an hour after so its not like someone only told him afterwards. He allowed the leave campaign to deliberately mislead the voting public. Now you might well say thats the publics fault for being misled and not doing their homework, but that reinforces my own assertion that many of them are either lazy or stupid or both.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Pretty sure that's due to our 1000s of miles of unprotected border and because we're officially apathetic about letting them in. Have you ever studied geography? Have you seen how far migrants have to go to reach the UK? You think they won't change their minds along the way and go elsewhere if they know the invitations are gone and they have to swim the channel, and even then would be found and deported for all their trouble? Maybe a few, but not nearly the numbers that normally tried before. What, 1 in 15 are actually trying to escape war? The rest simply go to where they can get the most simply for breathing that country's air. While it would be nice to just taken in anyone, it isn't Britain's job to take in anyone who can't provide for themselves.
I'm sure your thousands of miles of fenced off and patrolled borders are much more difficult to control than our thousands of miles of unfenced and unpatrolled coastline.
If they can get to a French, Spanish, Belgian or Dutch coast, I doubt they will struggle to get a lift a little closer to England and swim the last few miles. Once they are on land (or even close enough to be rescued and then brought to land) they can claim asylum and they are good for a couple years at least. If that was down to the EU, they could pull the same trick in the first member state they arrived in.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 09:39 PM
 
Surprised no mention of Hawaii yet. Now that should be a good testbed for gun control laws.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Restating the same points over and over in response to points they barely even relate to doesn't make you look smart at all.
I'm not sure why you think my answers are going to change. I'm very adamant on this issue, I'm not going to back down on it.

DIdn't we establish already that the US military isn't about to launch hellfire missiles at crowds of US citizens? Changed your opinion on that one?
They don't because we don't allow control to slip that far.

Oh please. So now you carrying a gun is saving the whole ****ing world? You need a reality check.
Told you wouldn't get it, I wasn't expecting you to. Also, I said nothing about carrying guns, merely owning them, that's just more of your embellishment of my positions.

There you go repeating something I've already said to you again, smart guy.
I use repetition because you don't get things the first 50 times.

I'm sorry, I've been debating you while giving you enough credit to assume you will understand a fairly obvious counterpoint without me having to spell it out as I might for a five year old. This is the third point in one post where that credit has proven undeserved.

I'm saying people can shoot themselves dead while intoxicated one night, when they would otherwise have woken the next morning with no such desire to die, had the gun not been to hand in the glove box/nightstand/under the pillow/in a pocket etc.
Boohoo. You had no counterpoint, that's Hollywood. I swear to Christ, you watch movies and think that's what people really do (and this isn't the first time, either). It's amazing. Suicide stems from years of depression, illness, and reflection. The amount of people who just get drunk and shoot themselves is probably about the same as the number who take acid or PCP and try to fly; they're very rare fringe cases, statistically they simply don't happen.

If you watch all the clips he did state on TV that the he would redistribute that money (which isn't as much as £350m as you already know because you stated a lower figure yourself elsewhere) to the NHS or schools.
I know he did.

He waited until after the vote before saying it was a mistake. And only an hour after so its not like someone only told him afterwards. He allowed the leave campaign to deliberately mislead the voting public. Now you might well say thats the publics fault for being misled and not doing their homework, but that reinforces my own assertion that many of them are either lazy or stupid or both.
He never said it was a mistake, he never said it would all go to the NHS. You're lying, deluded, or just misinformed (again).

I'm sure your thousands of miles of fenced off and patrolled borders are much more difficult to control than our thousands of miles of unfenced and unpatrolled coastline.
We don't really try to control them, we let them in because we needed the labor, and that was my point. If we really wanted to seal the border we could do so but we choose not to. The USA isn't an already overcrowded island, like the UK.

If they can get to a French, Spanish, Belgian or Dutch coast, I doubt they will struggle to get a lift a little closer to England and swim the last few miles. Once they are on land (or even close enough to be rescued and then brought to land) they can claim asylum and they are good for a couple years at least. If that was down to the EU, they could pull the same trick in the first member state they arrived in.
More of your Hollywood-type fantasies. You should write scripts for the Hallmark channel or the Oprah Winfrey Network. There's nothing realistic about your daydreams, but middle-aged women would love them, they could watch them while dabbing their eyes with tissues.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2016, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Didn't we establish already that the US military isn't about to launch hellfire missiles at crowds of US citizens? Changed your opinion on that one?
Why is that? What prevents them from firing on their own, whereas the soldiers in those communist regimes had no problem doing so?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 06:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Why is that? What prevents them from firing on their own, whereas the soldiers in those communist regimes had no problem doing so?
CTP and I both agree it is unlikely to happen in the US. Thats all. I meant we'd established it for the purposes of our discussion.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 06:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not sure why you think my answers are going to change. I'm very adamant on this issue, I'm not going to back down on it.
I'm not asking you to back down, I'm just asking you to keep your counterpoints relevant to my points. Otherwise they don't work as counterpoints.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Told you wouldn't get it, I wasn't expecting you to. Also, I said nothing about carrying guns, merely owning them, that's just more of your embellishment of my positions.
I can play this game too but it gets no-one anywhere. All Americans will turn green and then spontaneously combust unless you enact sensible gun laws by 2019. Its totally obvious and irrefutable, but you won't get it so I'm not about to explain why.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I use repetition because you don't get things the first 50 times.
Except you're repeating my points, so I got them before you started.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Boohoo. You had no counterpoint, that's Hollywood. I swear to Christ, you watch movies and think that's what people really do (and this isn't the first time, either). It's amazing. Suicide stems from years of depression, illness, and reflection. The amount of people who just get drunk and shoot themselves is probably about the same as the number who take acid or PCP and try to fly; they're very rare fringe cases, statistically they simply don't happen.
You cannot possibly know how many would have changed their mind faced with the slightest obstacle to their suicide.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I know he did.
Then why the **** are you arguing the point?


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
He never said it was a mistake, he never said it would all go to the NHS. You're lying, deluded, or just misinformed (again).
He said some of it might go to schools or other places its needed, the destination is not really the point. The mistake was the figure. And he absolutely said it was a mistake. He used the word mistake three times.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
We don't really try to control them, we let them in because we needed the labor, and that was my point. If we really wanted to seal the border we could do so but we choose not to. The USA isn't an already overcrowded island, like the UK.
Then why the wall? The UK isn't overcrowded either, stop reading the Daily Fail.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
More of your Hollywood-type fantasies. You should write scripts for the Hallmark channel or the Oprah Winfrey Network. There's nothing realistic about your daydreams, but middle-aged women would love them, they could watch them while dabbing their eyes with tissues.
Many made it across the Med on boats just fine. The English Channel shouldn't present a significantly bigger challenge.
Its hilarious that the idea of a boat ride is hollywood fantasy to you, but you saving the world with your gun collection is somehow realistic. Maybe you ought to talk to SyFy.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 06:22 AM
 
It will please few of you to learn that its the handguns you should be banning.

Handguns, suicides, mass shootings deaths, and self-defense: Findings from a research report on gun violence.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not asking you to back down, I'm just asking you to keep your counterpoints relevant to my points. Otherwise they don't work as counterpoints.
They are, you simply don't like the answers. Can't say I care.

I can play this game too but it gets no-one anywhere. All Americans will turn green and then spontaneously combust unless you enact sensible gun laws by 2019. Its totally obvious and irrefutable, but you won't get it so I'm not about to explain why.
Not in the least bit comparable, try harder.

Except you're repeating my points, so I got them before you started.
You don't even know your own "points" any longer.

You cannot possibly know how many would have changed their mind faced with the slightest obstacle to their suicide.
I've spent a lot of time researching the correlation between depression and suicide. I do indeed know that people don't decide to off themselves after getting pissed. Hollywood isn't reality.

Then why the **** are you arguing the point?
or schools... and he never said all the money. Seriously, you Stay people have the reasoning skills of a llama. If it weren't for the BBC telling you your positions, you wouldn't have one at all...

He said some of it might go to schools or other places its needed, the destination is not really the point. The mistake was the figure. And he absolutely said it was a mistake. He used the word mistake three times.
... as evidenced there. If you have proof that it isn't 350M /week, where is it? It's a number I've seen used by both sides for years.

Then why the wall? The UK isn't overcrowded either, stop reading the Daily Fail.
Even Trump admits he isn't going to build a wall, it was campaign rhetoric, FFS. As if the ignorant windbag hasn't made up all sorts of other things. If we wanted to stop Mexican immigration we would, but we're already running unemployment below 5% in those areas of the country, evicting all the illegals, and stopping new ones, would cause economic collapse, because most Americans are "too good" to work in agriculture and mining.

Many made it across the Med on boats just fine. The English Channel shouldn't present a significantly bigger challenge. Its hilarious that the idea of a boat ride is hollywood fantasy to you, but you saving the world with your gun collection is somehow realistic. Maybe you ought to talk to SyFy.
Except they won't when there are EU countries along the way that will give them what they want and the UK no longer will. The fact you can't follow logical conclusions isn't my problem, I blame your shitty, collectivist ideology that doesn't allow individual opinions. If the USA falls under dictatorial rule, the chance that we'll comply with our treaties is greatly diminished. Now, what would happen if we renege on our treaties? The world markets? I'll give you a few minutes...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 12:20 PM
 
I think America needs to start finally changing the constitution.

It first requires deciding what we *want* it to be. Then, if it is decided that we provide concrete exceptions or stipulations to something like the second amendment to modernize it, we write those in. If we don't want to do this, we clarify it, because it is clear that we don't agree on what it has meant historically.

Forget what it has been, it is time to put to rest this incredibly silly idea that it needs to forever remain as it always has been, despite our not agreeing upon what this is. I'm not even talking about a wholesale gutting, just a tweak here and there to put to rest these endless arguments over an old-ass document and what the founding fathers would have actually wanted.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think America needs to start finally changing the constitution.

It first requires deciding what we *want* it to be. Then, if it is decided that we provide concrete exceptions or stipulations to something like the second amendment to modernize it, we write those in. If we don't want to do this, we clarify it, because it is clear that we don't agree on what it has meant historically.

Forget what it has been, it is time to put to rest this incredibly silly idea that it needs to forever remain as it always has been, despite our not agreeing upon what this is. I'm not even talking about a wholesale gutting, just a tweak here and there to put to rest these endless arguments over an old-ass document and what the founding fathers would have actually wanted.
Honestly, it's a little insulting to be told my position is due to having allowed myself to be overcome with constitutional inertia as opposed to the metric ****ton of thought I've put into it, but hey, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

I do however feel compelled to point out it's a poor strategy with which to build a 2/3rds majority.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Honestly, it's a little insulting to be told my position is due to having allowed myself to be overcome with constitutional inertia as opposed to the metric ****ton of thought I've put into it, but hey, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

I do however feel compelled to point out it's a poor strategy with which to build a 2/3rds majority.

What I wrote has nothing to do with your position, or the righteousness of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:16 PM
 
My position is not to change the constitution in this regard. This was claimed to be a based in an incredibly silly idea it needs to forever remain as it has been.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think America needs to start finally changing the constitution.
Do tell? I'm shocked.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My position is not to change the constitution in this regard. This was claimed to be a based in an incredibly silly idea it needs to forever remain as it has been.

Re-read what I wrote.

I wasn't proposing a specific change to the constitution. I was proposing that we either change, or clarify. You clearly don't want to change it, so let's clarify things so that we can put these constant debates to rest for this and future generations.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:39 PM
 
We have a process for that, go right ahead and get started.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:42 PM
 
We aren't going to get very far if we have a population that is against touching the document just because.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Re-read what I wrote.

I wasn't proposing a specific change to the constitution. I was proposing that we either change, or clarify. You clearly don't want to change it, so let's clarify things so that we can put these constant debates to rest for this and future generations.
Which thing isn't clear to your satisfaction?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:46 PM
 
We've "touched" (amended) it dozens of times in the past, already. That's nothing new.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 02:54 PM
 
See, this is exactly why we have these endless debate loops. With these sort of shitty attitudes it's no wonder it is virtually impossible to amend the constitution. It's supposed to be difficult, but in today's political climate I would call it literally impossible.

Subego: why do you even have to ask that? How many debates have we had about the second amendment and whether the rule was intended to be absolute (excluding background checks), what a militia was, what the context of the militia thing was, etc. I've even heard serious debates about the usage of ****ing commas in the second amendment.

It is clear that many people don't agree on what the second amendment (and many other parts of the constitution) is supposed to mean, and how it is supposed to apply to our modern age legally. So, change or clarify it rather than just turning the volume up on these never ending debates that go nowhere.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:13 PM
 
Scalia cleared a lot of that up, which is how the system is supposed to work, no?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:27 PM
 
What did he clear up?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
See, this is exactly why we have these endless debate loops. With these sort of shitty attitudes it's no wonder it is virtually impossible to amend the constitution. It's supposed to be difficult, but in today's political climate I would call it literally impossible.

Subego: why do you even have to ask that? How many debates have we had about the second amendment and whether the rule was intended to be absolute (excluding background checks), what a militia was, what the context of the militia thing was, etc. I've even heard serious debates about the usage of ****ing commas in the second amendment.

It is clear that many people don't agree on what the second amendment (and many other parts of the constitution) is supposed to mean, and how it is supposed to apply to our modern age legally. So, change or clarify it rather than just turning the volume up on these never ending debates that go nowhere.
Why would we need to change or "clarify" (read: change the interpretation) when the majority of the country supports it as is? The onus is not on the status quo to bend to the will of your ideology, no matter how hard you cry about it. The mechanism exists for what you're asking, you just don't have the support to exercise it.

You don't like how high the bar is set to change it, so now you want to move the goalposts. The interpretation couldn't be clearer, nor could the text: "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Move back to Canada if this idea is beyond your comfort zone.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They are, you simply don't like the answers. Can't say I care.
French cheese will probably get more expensive after we leave the EU.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Not in the least bit comparable, try harder.
Polar bears are left handed.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I've spent a lot of time researching the correlation between depression and suicide. I do indeed know that people don't decide to off themselves after getting pissed. Hollywood isn't reality.
You held seances?


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
or schools... and he never said all the money. Seriously, you Stay people have the reasoning skills of a llama. If it weren't for the BBC telling you your positions, you wouldn't have one at all...
They printed it on the side of a bus FFS.
And since you keep telling me where must be getting my information from, I'm going to go back to assuming that you're the basement shut-in with Fox and Inforwars on 24/7 that you sound like.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
... as evidenced there. If you have proof that it isn't 350M /week, where is it? It's a number I've seen used by both sides for years.
Even your golden boy Farage says it isn't £350m.

Why Vote Leave's £350m weekly EU cost claim is wrong | Politics | The Guardian
InFacts UK doesn’t send EU £350m a week or £55m a day - InFacts
Do we really send the EU £350m a week?
FactCheck: do we really send £350m a week to Brussels?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Even Trump admits he isn't going to build a wall, it was campaign rhetoric, FFS. As if the ignorant windbag hasn't made up all sorts of other things.
Trump is exactly the same as the leave campaign. Telling lies and stoking racist fears to get himself power. If you're lucky he won't have a clue what to actually do when he wins either.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Except they won't when there are EU countries along the way that will give them what they want and the UK no longer will. The fact you can't follow logical conclusions isn't my problem, I blame your shitty, collectivist ideology that doesn't allow individual opinions. If the USA falls under dictatorial rule, the chance that we'll comply with our treaties is greatly diminished. Now, what would happen if we renege on our treaties? The world markets? I'll give you a few minutes...
Except they don't pay benefits out like we do, they don't have an NHS like we do, and many of these people have family or communities of their own nationality here already. They want to come here more than they want to go to other EU countries. If the leave vote succeeds and Britain gets richer and better, this trend will only continue. Maybe thats their plan, to **** the country up so no-one wants to come here.

The fact you can't listen to anyone else who might know better than you isn't my problem. I blame your shitty attitude to people who don't think exactly like you do.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The mechanism exists for what you're asking, you just don't have the support to exercise it.
How can he know unless he speaks up? Its not illegal to try to persuade people to change their opinions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How can he know unless he speaks up? Its not illegal to try to persuade people to change their opinions.
It's also not illegal to criticize him for a flawed argument. Could become so, though, if gets his way.

He could try *listening* for once, not just reading the words and spitting out talking points he read online, but actually trying to understand why his viewpoint is the minority and he doesn't have the support for what he's asking. That's how he could know.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We aren't going to get very far if we have a population that is against touching the document just because.
Majority rules. Sorry you don't like that.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why would we need to change or "clarify" (read: change the interpretation) when the majority of the country supports it as is? The onus is not on the status quo to bend to the will of your ideology, no matter how hard you cry about it. The mechanism exists for what you're asking, you just don't have the support to exercise it.

You don't like how high the bar is set to change it, so now you want to move the goalposts. The interpretation couldn't be clearer, nor could the text: "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Move back to Canada if this idea is beyond your comfort zone.

The majority of the country may support your interpretation, but it is VERY clear that many of us don't agree upon what that interpretation is. To think otherwise, I feel, is delusional.

For example, is a background check an infringement? What is an arm? Can we own nuclear weapons? You've heard all of these arguments 20394823094 times, and that is exactly my point. If you feel that the majority of the country would back your interpretation, why not seek to get an amendment to clarify further so you can easily shut down anybody that would make an argument like one I've listed?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 08:13 PM
 
Is a background check an infringement?

Obviously not. We have them, and they've been adjudicated as legal.


What is an arm?

Automatic weapons are regulated from top to bottom. No one is complaining about this. Anything less than that is okay for a civilian.


Can we own nukes?

We can't own automatic weapons without government approval, why would a nuke be different?


Any more?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What did he clear up?
That the militia clause is meaningless, the right applies to citizens, and the right has been officially incorporated into each state constitution.

This is the law of the land now. All arguments about these questions are purely academic.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The majority of the country may support your interpretation, but it is VERY clear that many of us don't agree upon what that interpretation is. To think otherwise, I feel, is delusional.
I agree, many of you don't. Not enough to change it, though. That's my point.

For example, is a background check an infringement?
Depending on how it's implemented, including if you're denied because the gov't put you on some list with no due process of law.
What is an arm? Can we own nuclear weapons?
No, I don't think nuclear arms are necessary to the security of the free state. Do you?

You've heard all of these arguments 20394823094 times, and that is exactly my point. If you feel that the majority of the country would back your interpretation, why not seek to get an amendment to clarify further so you can easily shut down anybody that would make an argument like one I've listed?
What's in it for the status quo? I mean, why would we? This might be inconceivable to you but I am actually Pro 2A - why would I consent to another amendment that removes or allows the government to suspend the 2A? There's already a process for it, why should we make a new process to make it easier for you? I don't need an amendment to shut down your arguments, I just did it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 09:11 PM
 
Didn't it used to be legal to buy disposable rocket launchers? What was that all about?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Didn't it used to be legal to buy disposable rocket launchers? What was that all about?
I'm not familiar, though I'm sure I'm on the "list" now that I've searched whether they're for sale.

Thanks for that.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What's in it for the status quo? I mean, why would we? This might be inconceivable to you but I am actually Pro 2A - why would I consent to another amendment that removes or allows the government to suspend the 2A? There's already a process for it, why should we make a new process to make it easier for you? I don't need an amendment to shut down your arguments, I just did it.

If you think the majority of people feel like you do about the 2A, why do you feel that an amendment would weaken it?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
French cheese will probably get more expensive after we leave the EU.

Polar bears are left handed.

You held seances?
Yep, your position fell apart, now you're raving.

They printed it on the side of a bus FFS.
And since you keep telling me where must be getting my information from, I'm going to go back to assuming that you're the basement shut-in with Fox and Inforwars on 24/7 that you sound like.
Nope, but keep swinging with the PAs, they really help and don't make you look desperate, at all.

Even your golden boy Farage says it isn't £350m.
The average is £350m, just because it wasn't this last year doesn't matter, the money itself is less important than the principle of the situation. Even £250m is absurd. However, given you've lost close to £20B from your fishing industry in the last 4 years, that number should have to apply somewhere as well. You think propping up failures like Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal doesn't have a negative impact on what you receive from the EU? If so, I have some beautiful bridges that need your consideration.

Trump is exactly the same as the leave campaign. Telling lies and stoking racist fears to get himself power. If you're lucky he won't have a clue what to actually do when he wins either.
He really isn't, but it shows how desperate you are to vilify them that you would say that. Holy shit.

Except they don't pay benefits out like we do, they don't have an NHS like we do,
When you leave out food you attract rats, as the saying goes, and these "rats" have increased your violent crime by 27% in 2 years. >150,000 new cases of violent crime, overwhelming your police and your judiciary system.

The fact you can't listen to anyone else who might know better than you isn't my problem. I blame your shitty attitude to people who don't think exactly like you do.
Ditto. (I think. You didn't word that last part particularly well, but I believe I got the gist of it.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If you think the majority of people feel like you do about the 2A, why do you feel that an amendment would weaken it?
Though not posed to me, I don't understand the question.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Though not posed to me, I don't understand the question.
An amendment could provide clarification. For example, if we wanted it to, it could say:

"the right of any person not currently serving time in prison to keep and bear any semi or fully automatic firearms, providing they have passed a criminal background check administered by their state, where the definition of criminality is defined by their state, cannot be infringed upon"

We would have to clean up the legal definition of criminality and outline the definition of a criminal background check and stuff, I'm not a lawyer, but once all lawyered up, wouldn't this be a lot more specific and indisputable than the vague language currently in the 2A?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The majority of the country may support your interpretation, but it is VERY clear that many of us don't agree upon what that interpretation is. To think otherwise, I feel, is delusional.
I don't think otherwise. My response is go cry in your safe space & enjoy your gun free zones. I will not support amending the constitution because it makes you feel bad. Perhaps if you had a convincing argument in logic, reason, and historical reference. But you don't. I interpret the 2A to mean Besson has to eat shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Does that mean you should have to do it? The language is clear and the courts have already interpreted it, there is zero reason to do what you've proposed.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 26, 2016 at 11:37 PM. Reason: Clarifying a bit.)
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
An amendment could provide clarification. For example, if we wanted it to, it could say:

"the right of any person not currently serving time in prison to keep and bear any semi or fully automatic firearms, providing they have passed a criminal background check administered by their state, where the definition of criminality is defined by their state, cannot be infringed upon"

We would have to clean up the legal definition of criminality and outline the definition of a criminal background check and stuff, I'm not a lawyer, but once all lawyered up, wouldn't this be a lot more specific and indisputable than the vague language currently in the 2A?
Besson, this is so naive it's almost cute.

There's no vagueness about the 2A - you just don't like it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
An amendment could provide clarification. For example, if we wanted it to, it could say:

"the right of any person not currently serving time in prison to keep and bear any semi or fully automatic firearms, providing they have passed a criminal background check administered by their state, where the definition of criminality is defined by their state, cannot be infringed upon"

We would have to clean up the legal definition of criminality and outline the definition of a criminal background check and stuff, I'm not a lawyer, but once all lawyered up, wouldn't this be a lot more specific and indisputable than the vague language currently in the 2A?
I'm not trying to be a jag... what's actually being clarified here?

Convicts aren't allowed to bear arms. This has been adjudicated as constitutional.
The right to bear arms may be infringed depending upon the type of arm, as they are with automatic weapons and shotguns which are concealable. This has been adjudicated as constitutional.
We have background checks. These have been adjudicated as constitutional.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2016, 11:49 PM
 
@Snow-i

Is everything okay? You seem uncharacteristically angry.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Snow-i

Is everything okay? You seem uncharacteristically angry.

Even the Asperger's guy can detect a lot of emotion in his tone

Don't know how to handle this.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,