Guns, Guns Guns

smr wrote:Allright The E, just look to your own present history with the Nazis and see how they usurped the German Republic and the Constitution and laws. This nonsense about the living Constitution is a bunch of balderdash! This reminds me of Bill Clinton trying to change the meaning of "is" when he gave testimony under oath about having sexual relations! If the Constitution is to be changed, America has mechanism for changing it. Is hard to change the Constitution...you bet but not impossible. It's also hard to add or take from the Constitution! When a country allows laws or meanings to fit the desired outcome...the country is no longer a democracy or republic but on the way to something else. Personally, I feel that you so blinded by your desire for utopia for the world that you have forgotten that peace is forged by strength. A gun has never killed another human being. It's the human being pulling the trigger that makes the decision.

...(hmmm where's the "clapping smilies")...

PeterZ wrote:If you wish to argue that discarding items of the Bill of Rights separately or as a whole is a big mistake, I agree. I may not agree with your specific logic but do agree with your overall conclusion. It might even be fun to discuss.

Thank You.

gcomeau wrote: ...cause you to up and declare that America no longer exists either...

I haven't yet, but a few people I know already have.

Daryl wrote:If prodded we would sort of go "Aw shucks, well of course we have allegiance to the country" in an embarrassed tone.

An American never would, most would say "Hell yea!" though to tell the truth, I'm from Texas and most of us, if just asked "who" we are, would call themselves "Texans" first, but if asked if we're Americans wouldn't hesitate to yell it out.

Daryl wrote:I doubt that one in a hundred Australians (conservative or progressive) could name the writers of our constitution or even our first few PMs.

I hate to say, but way higher percentage than I would give Americans (especially if Jay Leno is any indication) but I would say nearly all know George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Daryl wrote:so we are patriotic just not openly.

Most of us are definitely flag waving patriots. (except the far leftist liberal traitors who hate America ... MMor )

The E wrote:If your only argument is "The Nazis did it!", you have no argument.

So...ummm...what, the NAZI's didn't exist? My History professors seem to disagree.

Daryl wrote:To be a nitpicker, guns do kill people. A great uncle of mine was killed by a gun that went off accidentally due to being dropped and having a faulty trigger mechanism.

So, it was the gun that did it, not the person who fumbled a loaded weapon instead of handling it properly or the person who made the faulty trigger? I have handled lots of guns, since I could hold one in my hand and never ever dropped one.

Daryl wrote:To be a nitpicker, guns do kill people. A great uncle of mine was killed by a gun that went off accidentally due to being dropped and having a faulty trigger mechanism.
As stated many times there are many guns that are capable of killing people, but the proponents of gun control focus on those weapons that are specifically designed to kill people as their primary reason for being.

I am sorry for your lose, but a modern gun should not go off under the circumstances you describe. Either: A. the firearm was in poor condition or B. It is a REALLY old gun. I can attest to this. My Dad currently has 2 old .22 rifles that originally belonged to his grandfather (my great-grandfather). Both of these are 80 or 90 years old and will discharge if dropped under the right conditions.

No loss, happened about 80 years ago, well before I was born. Gun was a side by side 12 gauge with open hammers leant against a fence while my great uncle climbed over it. Gun fell, hammer got partially hooked during the fall & went off. You could say it wasn't the gun but he, himself being careless, but as he had no intention of dying I say the gun. This is just a nit picking sideline comment, not really relevant.

Henry Brown wrote:

Daryl wrote:To be a nitpicker, guns do kill people. A great uncle of mine was killed by a gun that went off accidentally due to being dropped and having a faulty trigger mechanism.
As stated many times there are many guns that are capable of killing people, but the proponents of gun control focus on those weapons that are specifically designed to kill people as their primary reason for being.

I am sorry for your lose, but a modern gun should not go off under the circumstances you describe. Either: A. the firearm was in poor condition or B. It is a REALLY old gun. I can attest to this. My Dad currently has 2 old .22 rifles that originally belonged to his grandfather (my great-grandfather). Both of these are 80 or 90 years old and will discharge if dropped under the right conditions.

MAD-4A wrote:

The E wrote:If your only argument is "The Nazis did it!", you have no argument.

So...ummm...what, the NAZI's didn't exist? My History professors seem to disagree.

Unless you're talking about things that are really actually evil without question (like, say, committing actual genocide), saying "The Nazis did it so it must be bad" is the laziest possible argument you can find. The Nazis used the mechanisms of democracy to change the german constitution, but that doesn't mean that doing so is something that is evil and must be opposed at every turn based on moral principles alone.

Another way to look at it: The Nazis also did public infrastructure work and invested heavily in military hardware and training. According to the "Nazis did it so it must be bad" principle, those things must be evil and have to be opposed.

The Nazis did a lot of things. Some of them were evil, recognizably so to anyone with a functional moral center. Other things are more ambivalent, and in those cases (and I submit to you that the issue of how constitutions change over time is one such), it is simply not acceptable to say "The Nazis did it too!". If you're going to use that argument, you've actually just exposed how bad you are at making arguments, because you've gone from making a point to basically trying to shame the people on the other side into accepting your point of view because they wouldn't want to be associated with Nazis, right?

There is some validity to the argument that accusations of racism are thrown around far too freely these days. What smr did, what you are doing, is exactly like that.

MAD-4A wrote:Oh the irony, someone complaining about other people interpreting the 2nd amemndment to suit their own argument while simaltaniously interpreting it to suit their own agenda.

Seriously, just how stupid are you? I don´t care even the slightest if yanks run around with guns. I don´t HAVE an agenda in regards to firearms ownership in USA.

It doesn´t matter to me, it has zero impact on me.

Personally i wouldn´t mind slightly more "loose" laws here, as long as the safeguards remain.

MAD-4A wrote: The 2nd amendment states

Yes? Now please actually READ that with more understanding of the words and especially the multiple parts as a whole, than a 6 year old can manage.

MAD-4A wrote:If their intent was for the Federal Government to be unable to restrict the "State Militias" then they would have said

No, because that would be very stupid when the document has already established "we the people (of the united states)".

Or maybe you haven´t actually read the whole thing?

MAD-4A wrote:Are you claiming they were too stupid to know the difference between "people" and "State"?

Oh, the people who wrote it knew just perfectly what they wanted to say and what they DID write.

The stupid came later when various "people" tried to make sure the document said what THEY wanted it to.

You know, the people with actual agendas.

As my only agenda is annoyance at the willful ignorance and incompetence used to exploit a historical document for petty political scheeming.

Falsifying history to justify national dogma?

It´s disgustingly pathetic.

MAD-4A wrote:The purpose was to restrict the Federal Government from passing laws preventing the PEOPLE from arming themselves against the formation of a tyrannical government.

You keep telling yourself that convenient lie.

The purpose was to establish that a restriction on weapons like the one enforced by the British could never be allowed again and that the defense of the nation would lie with the (pseudo)militia that had recently happened to win the war, as they were aghast at the very thought of having a standing army that might lead USA to become a colonial state just like the UK that it had just broken away from.

Oh yeah right, USA has a standing army and has been the biggest colonial empire for decades by now, ooops. Maybe you should start listening better to those founding fathers you revere so much, except when you don´t like to do as they wanted of course.