huh? How do liberals INSIST on gun ownership? Please explain.

"classic" liberal = American Revolutionary

D'OH.

There are a lot of liberals who own guns. I think the argument lies in imposing certain kinds of gun control measures so guns don't fall into the wrong hands, which is a reasonable thing to want. Conservatives don't believe any kind of gun control, and that is a shame. I don't know anyone who thinks we should completely get rid of all guns, and that no one should be allowed to have one.

wait... what'd I do?

Obviously started a debated about gun control and liberals, who in todays world are the most anti-gun group next to Democrats. :D

They insist on the RIGHT to gun ownership, to be precise.

That 2d amendment didn't write itself. A couple of hippies named Madison and Jefferson made it happen. Ben "flowerchild" Franklin approved of it, and so did some lefty pervert named John Jay.

Define "wrong hands"?

I mean, I pretty much hate everyone I know, and I have managed not to kill any of my neighbors so far, right?

The way the amendment is worded, unless you have had your rights stripped by a felony conviction by a jury of your peers, you should be able to walk down the street with a flamethrower, if that's what you want to do.

DOIN IT WRONG.

Today's "liberals", I mean. By the classic (and dictionary) definition, a liberal is interested in continually increasing individual liberties, not finding ways to limit them.

But now "liberal" means some hippie-ass PETA crap in which you cannot say badwrong things or eat some red meat or shoot inanimate things on your own property, just for the hell of it. No, today's "liberals" are not really any different than the Jesus & Fear crowd on the right. Together, they are the No Fun crowd, and in a CIVILIZED society, they'd be laughed out into the wasteland, and they would breed no more.

But I'm not in a civilized society, I'm in America, and I am told I have to choose between Sean Hannity and Air Fucking America, and the very thought of this false dichotomy makes me want to exhume William Jennings Bryan and shit in his festering ribcage.

Oh, goddammit.

So do you go to all the local funerals and shit on graves? lol (Alluding to your comments about Bush of course)

No. There simply isn't enough Metamucil.

So you seem to find the idea of shitting on dead people pretty enticing.

Have you spoken to your therapist about that? ;)

Yeah, I'm working on that.

Therapist? Why would I have a therapist?

TGRR,
Really, really together.

ahuh...lol That's good. That's very very good. The world is a safe place after all.

Yeah, it's all fluffy white clouds and pink monkeys and shit. :3eye:

Well it is in my world. :)

btw, you can call me Pollyanna if you like.

Can't disagree with any of that. Other than others may disagree with your ability to define liberals of today.

Liberal in the 18th century:

http://www.boldhearts.com/3b50326r%2...ck%20Henry.jpg

Liberal in the 21st century:

http://www.topsocialite.com/wp-conte...d-nomakeup.jpg

So they were all boys in puffy pants and long coats the 18th century and now they're girls who really should go see a hairdresser?

Hey, the guy standing on the left was the best pit fighter of his day, and the girl is Barbara Streisand, America's Wailer-in-Chief.

yes well, in any case, I guess there's no law against fighting in funny clothes. Check out WWF! ;) I don't think there's a law against wailing either.

lol...now that's funny.

Mentally ill people who go on shooting sprees. Kids who go on shooting sprees. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased weapons, even though they should not have been able to.

*edit to add* When the 2nd ammendment was written, we didn't have the same kind of weapons we have now.

I could give you countless examples of extreme behavior by otherwise previously legally sane people. You know them as well. So what's the point? We just start to restrict Constitutional rights because of a few nuts when 99% of the rest of people are doing it all right?

Flamethrowers are legal. ;)

I would bet that is not a true statement.

You can put that money in the tip jar.:p

Damm. I stand corrected! Well some states regulate them, but according to that 40 don't!:blush:

Ok, now I want one.

Dumbasses killing a family of four with their monster SUV. In some of those instances, the people involved legally purchased an automobile, even though they should not have been able to.

So what? When amendment III was written, we didn't have the system of barracks we have now. Would you like to erase amendment III?

Okay, I love this country a little bit.

How is it restricting anyone's Constitutional rights to require a reasonable waiting period and extensive background check before getting a lethal weapon? Or to require special permits for certain kinds of weapons? I'm sorry, but certain people just should not be able to legally purchase weapons, and most people have no business owning machine guns or certain other kinds of weapons.

I will go one step further though, and say the health care system is also at fault, because deregulation has tied their hands. Some people who have gone on shooting sprees should not have even been out in the general public because they had severe mental problems, and it was KNOWN they had these problems. But the law has been watered down so bad that it is almost impossible to hold someone against their will.

So it isn't JUST gun control issues that need to be addressed. does that make you happy? ;)

And those people should be charge with vehicular homicide. Frankly, I think it's WAY to easy to get driving permits today, and many people are WAY too distracted to be behind the wheel of a car. I can't tell you how many times I have almost been driven over (I drive a Geo metro convertible, tiny car) by some moron in an SUV who is talking on a fucking cell phone not paying attention to their surroundings. IMO, I should be able to shoot their ass.

Oh good grief. That is ridiculous and does not even deserve a response.

Because the wording of the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall we look up "infringed" in the dictionary?

Well, hell. Why not just wrap everyone in bubble wrap and lock them in their houses? Safer that way.

Sucks when you can't support your argument, hmm?

No, but driving is not a right, it's a priviledge.

I wasn't arguing against ammendment III, so why should I respond to that? Saying I can't support an argument about the third ammendment when I never said anything about the third ammendment is you just being argumentative and trying to confuse the issue.

Infringed means to violate. It is not infringing on anyone's right to own a weapon simply because you make them go through a waiting period, or have restrictions on certain kinds of weapons. "The right to bear arms" does not mean you have the right to own a machine gun, and if someone is mentally unstable and could pose a danger to society, why should we give them a license to kill? Do you think anyone should be able to own any kind of weapon they want?

You can have my nuclear bomb when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

No right is absolute and regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Roberts court made that clear in its decision in the Heller (DC gun ban) case.

The finding of the Court, written by Scalia:
But it doesnt address Obama spanking Wall Street.

paging mr radar, paging mr radar.

oh noes!

is this radar dude one of the framers of the Constitution brought back to life to tell 21st century America what "they" meant 200+ years ago?

Wow. I thought that was why those framers established the federal judiciary of "one Supreme Court and such inferior courts..."

I dont understand why the words of Scalia in the Heller decision are so hard to interpret... "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.."

Wow.... :corn:

I'll match your radar with a scalia....but hold the beer.

I'm not meaning to disparage Mr. Radar. but....

In the meantime, why do you think this so hard to interpret> "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

I don't disagree with that statement. I was paging radar because long time dwellars are very familiar with what his response to this:

Infringed can also be defined as "to encroach upon".

And yes, it does mean I have the right to a machine gun. Or a tank, if I can afford one.

And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.

Scalia is a freedom hating fuckwit that in any civilized nation would be beaten daily for his own good. Instead, since we are not in a civilized country, he is a Supreme Court Justice, who makes Samuel Alito look like Thurgood Marshall.

Just saying.

So the Rat Pack once bought a Sherman Tank. Rode it up and down Sunset Blvd.

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.

TGRR,
Off to get his before some liberal has a hissy fit.

Only if they put rubber treads on it and obey existing motor vehicle statutes.;)

I can make a tank street legal, I think. Except maybe the wheel base part.

Then I say you're entitled to have it.:D

No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.

Not at all, there's no amendment that says you can hurt someone else that's not hurting you :headshake

cough Bullshit, bullfuckingshit /cough

I'm reading it as written.

And Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs. But what in what I have said says he had the right to send them to people?

Owning a gun doesn't give me the right to shoot people I don't like.

Well this is the crux of the problem.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you can legally make a bomb as a weapon under the rights stated in your constitution, and you intend to use it on someone. Why is it legal for you to do that, but it's not legal for you to be arrested because you have that weapon and you're planning on killing someone with it. Why is it only legal to arrest you after you've done the killing?

Surely that makes no moral sense what so ever.

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself. If you attempt to or there is evidence to suggest that you are planning to use it against someone that is illegal. Otherwise, not.

Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.

I'll have to ass-ume thats more of your humor.

If you can prove that I'm planning to kill someone with a gun (or a bomb, etc), you can arrest me for conspiracy to commit murder, and be perfectly constitutional about the whole thing.

I fail to see your point. Perhaps I'm just not reading you right. Could you clarify it?