strange....not sure what you're attempting to say. Are you at issue with Jefferson's views....or mine? Because you're poorly equiped to deal with either, frankly.
The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.
Now that's profound. lol
Printable View
strange....not sure what you're attempting to say. Are you at issue with Jefferson's views....or mine? Because you're poorly equiped to deal with either, frankly.
The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.
Now that's profound. lol
Sorry to disappoint but I haven't offered an interpretation. I merely repeated the obvious fact that the only clear INTENT made EXPLICIT in the amendment is the intent to arm the recognized militias. Clearly there were implicit intentions not mentioned in the document. The acquisition of food, for example, in the day required the use of firearms. I am most definitely not a strict constructionist. So I don't really give a damn about original intent. My post was merely a response as to what is clearly explicit and what it read into it by the modern interpretation of the court. I'm quite happy with the concept of a living growing document. Scalia isn't, yet he plays the hypocrite by pretending to adhere to original intent while in reality reading the document fast and loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
cigarettes are a personal choice and death is self inflicted-try telling the shooting victim's families that guns are not a problem in the usa. Don't ban guns then -ban bullets-or you can buy ONE for personal use only.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Just thinking about this, I'd think this is about right. I mean, the NRA pushed for a bill in Florida that would have fined pediatricians for just even ASKING the parents of the child if there was a gun in the house.
And for all the people that are worried about the government having too much power as the argument for keeping their arms - well in the 21st Century, it's not the government's guns I'd be worried about, but their mouse clicks.
And FWIW, I think events like these are "the price of freedom" that we currently enjoy in the US. Oh, and something else I find amusing - many folks who vehemently seek to defend their interpretation of the Second Amendment would do so by beginning to infringe on the other Amendments to the Constitution... like "just locking up the crazies", or "making people live under more 'Christian principles' with movies and games"...
Though someone I chatted with noticed this - in some places, you can't buy more than one box of Sudafed without an ID check, etc... and yet this guy got 6,000 rounds of ammo in a couple weeks?
But hey, what do I know - I'm just a stupid tranny.
onmyknees-strange....not sure what you're attempting to say.
There's a reason you can't buy arsenic, strychnine or cyanide caps at the local drugstore or hardware outlet, because there was legislative decision made that these compounds were too dangerous to be readily available to the general public.
I just read a stat there were over 200K nonfatal gun shooting in the U.S. in 2010.
That's insane.
The NRA IMO has stopped representing responsible gun owners and become the shadow mouthpiece for the gun manufacturing INDUSTRY.
And if any U.S. politician seriously attempted to launch a campaign to overturn the 2nd Amendment in total, he would be defeated by both libs and conservatives.
When did the NRA become fanatical???
I've heard gun advocates argue the 2nd Amendment is the one Amendment that's the foundation for the ENTIRE Constitution, as if the right to bear firearms is the 'force' behind our system of laws. Such craziness.
THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border, and our lax gun laws are absolutely a contributor to this massacre in Colorado.
No normal gun owner has any justification for possessing a mag with 30-, 60-, 90- round loads.
What's the REAL agenda behind the NRA???
Is it really just to protect the bottom line of gun and ammo manufacturers??
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Obvious to whom........ You and Piers Morgan? Because it's not all that obvious to the vast majority of the rest of us. Of course you're happy with a living breathing document, and a court that interprets it as such....until it gives you Citizen's United. As my last post clearly stated...no where in that historical time frame was your version of the 2nd amendment given any weight. Nor did they discuss gathering of food with respect to the 2nd amendment. ...that's a left wing fantasy brewed up by academia. You're free to have that version, but thankfully you're in the minority and will remain that way for a very long time.
To anyone who can read. Do you know what EXPLICIT means? Do you know what INTENTION means? Now read the 2nd Amendment and tell me what INTENTION was EXPLICITLY written down. Sheeesh! What an idiot! All nine justices will tell you the intention made explicit by the document is the intention to have armed state militia. What the justices disagree on is the application of the 2nd amendment to current jurisprudence as well as what intent remains implicit.Quote:
Obvious to whom.......
I presented no version of the 2nd amendment. I suggested no interpretation nor application. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Quote:
no where in that historical time frame was your version of the 2nd amendment given any weight.
Did I say they did? I merely suggested some intents must have remained unstated. Look up the word IMPLICIT. I don't know what those intents were. Neither do you. Neither does Scalia nor any other justice. Hunting was just a possible example. Some originalists see it as their task to ferret out implicit intent and apply it as best they can to present circumstances.Quote:
Nor did they discuss gathering of food with respect to the 2nd amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
"THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border"
provably false. The majority of guns used in Mexico come from Russia and China. They prefer cheap AK-47's. That's a left wing talking point, and the precise thinking behind Holder's Fast and Furious. Hillary, Holder and several anti second amendment members of Congress all made that charge, and were forced to walk it back because it's simply not true. Now if you say The Justice Department and ATF are a main supplier to Mexican Drug Cartels, I'd tend to agree.
You ask what the real ajenda of the NRA is...I ask what the real ajenda of ATF is...or have you forgotton Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Fast and Furious ?
It makes me sad that a massacre of innocents in a cinema has degenerated into the predictable HA shouting match between those advocating gun control and those clinging to the constitution.
Lest we forget, this tragedy occurred because the perpetrator had effectively open access to deadly weapons and as much ammo as he could get his hands on, regardless of whatever weird rationale was going on inside his head.
So please, instead of invoking the constitution and arguing over the philosophical issues, what, if anything, can be done at a simple practical level to prevent this sort of occurrence happening again? And without some sort of intervention, it will. As the majority seem to believe it's somehow a price worth paying for the liberty of carrying weapons I don't see any realistic prospect of change.