guns aren't necessary and good for all people, they are a privilege and dangerous for all. get it?

[farminator3000]

you think you need a certain type gun- this does not mean the other 299,999,999 people in america should be allowed to own one, no questions asked. or have to carry one to defend themselves from criminals who have guns because gun nuts won't let sane laws be passed.

what about all the millions of people who get by with locks and alarms and dogs?

you are told what you can and can't and HAVE TO do with your car. (license, reg, eye test, DUI, etc)- you still have it and use it

"you can't tell me what to do with my gun" is just laughable.
yes, i can-
you can't shoot people unless they are trying to kill you.
you can't shoot it within 500 feet of a public road.
you have to keep it concealed in public in most (sane) places.
pretty sure they aren't allowed on airplanes.

things like that make sense, they PROTECT PEOPLE

laws like this shouldn't be based on something a minority wants- they should be what is best for everybody.

how would all you gun nuts feel if "immigrants" were allowed to make food stamp laws?

[Toronto]

1. Alas Farminator

it's a good thing there were no cars in 1791, else we'd now have uninsured, dangerous and inappropriate vehicles all over the road, because the founding fathers would probably have enshrined the right to drive...

[Mojorabbit]

2. I would be perfectly fine if food stamp users had a place at the negotiating table. nt

[former-republican]

3. You forgot a certain premise in your brilliant argument

Rights were made to protect the minority from the majority.



Please go back to school now.

[farminator3000]

4. you forgot, i didn't use the word 'rights'

are you trying to say your gun rights protect you from a majority? like a crazed mob of ethnics?

you also forgot, there are civil rights and constitutional rights.

are you talking about civil rights or the 2nd amendment?

these are the things we learn about in school...

[former-republican]

5. Do I have to explain that also to you?

Really....

I won't laugh at you anymore .

Now I feel bad.

[farminator3000]

6. you also read badly

explain what?

explain what the hell you are saying for starters

[farminator3000]

9. you forgot a word in your not-so helpful argument

because if you meant civil rights, in which case what you said still makes no sense,

having a gun is not a civil right, get it?

it isn't a civil libertiy either.

look at the title of the thread

[farminator3000]

7. how's about you try arguing with the actual words written by Scalia?

the 2nd amendment is actually a bit more complicated now than that one sentence written 200+ years ago.
the supreme court has written some opinions.

it actually said then that citizens have a moral obligation to carry arms as part of a militia to back up the army

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

the comma is the key. that being all one sentence, what it meant back then was
"since the army isn't big enough to defend against Britain, all people are allowed to have guns as a backup"

the concept is obviously outdated. that's why the supreme court has done opinions. and will do more opinions.


like this: (all directly from the SUPREME COURT)
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990)"

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

" We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.”"

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

[LeftInTX]

8. +++++