What are legitimate reasons for citizens owning guns?

[jackstar7]

Even 1 is too many, but it happens every time it's investigated and if it's OK with you can i go back and put Republicans in power where they lost an election by that percentage of votes next time? I'm sure you'll agree because it wasn't really that many.

Good ol' absolutism. That'll always get some fascism going.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Good ol' absolutism. That'll always get some fascism going.

You would know about that, nothing like a jackbooted thug like yourself to inspire the nazis and ballot box stuffing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You would know about that, nothing like a jackbooted thug like yourself to inspire the nazis and ballot box stuffing.

Aww, isn't that cute. Dances With Fascists is getting all edgy and shit.

Have they given you that coveted silver shirt yet?

 

[jackstar7]

You would know about that, nothing like a jackbooted thug like yourself to inspire the nazis and ballot box stuffing.

I'm impressed by your complete sentences. Or rather I would be if you used them.

 

[zinfamous]

Please show me where I said that.

I was responding to Tajjy, not you, bro.

You posted absolutes about the words in the bill of rights, which is why I explicitly asked you about your membership in a militia (after all, if one were an absolutist/originalist, they could only ever support free ownership of guns if they were in a militia, because constitution).

anyhoo, you responded appropriately.

Tajjy is an idiot, and responded with some 1903 statute, which has nothing to do with an absolutist stance on the Bill of Rights.

 

[zinfamous]

You asked a fucking question and I answered it with what the current law says about it. If you ask a question, i'll answer it if i feel like it. I don't really care where you stand on this particular issue and as you saw i didn't respond with a snarky comment or a nasty put down, i answered with a reasonable link. You fluffer commies in Berkeley sure are getting touchy lately.

i asked a guy about his absolutist's/originalist's stance, and you responded with a non-absolutist/originalist claptrap statute from some activist judge. It was a very specific claim from someone, that can only be answered by addressing the very specific verbiage that was codified at that time. Hence, absolutist.

Get it, retard? Seriously: there is no shame in admitting that you didn't get it. None.

 

[Jaskalas]

really? so 'shall not be infringed' isnt explicit enough?

Sure, but so too is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Bonus points towards life, which widespread semi autos seem to violate daily.

Thus I propose a compromise on weighing our needs. Everyone may have a bolt action rifle for hunting / home defense / whatever. An armed nation is maintained in keeping with the closest thing to muskets. But pursuant to the paramount importance of protecting life, the more deadly weapons should be guarded a lot more carefully and generally swept off the streets and removed from ownership as much as possible.

I would design it so Men and Women who own / carry the greater class of weapons must be security, military, police, or other trained professional who has undergone a course testing fitness and well being. And these folks should be regularly reviewed with screening for signs of stress and/or hardship. To ensure those who carry are of sound mind and body.

Guns become a right that is no longer questioned, but guns for mass shooting become a distinguished privilege.
I find this division reaches a compromise that can protect both the second amendment, and our right to live.

 

[Zaap]

Bringing up "life liberty and persuit of happiness" in a bill of rights argument... just... stop already.

 

[jackstar7]

Bringing up "life liberty and persuit of happiness" in a bill of rights argument... just... stop already.

The 9th.

 

[Zaap]

^ The irony is he's quoting something being explicit enough, since it's actually IN the bill of rights, while countering with one of the least understood, anything but explicitly outlined- mostly noob-quoted- parts of the declaration of independence, not the constitution.

I don't actually think the left would ever be the side pushing for a constitutionally explicit "Right to Life". It's almost a joke.

Likewise, oh man, the ways we could interpret a "Right to liberty" that go against all the big government, nanny state pipe-dreams.

And a right to pursue happiness, codified into law? I can see the legal messes now!

I wouldn't actually be in objection to any of them actually being part of the bill of rights, especially a right to life -(and I'm not anti-abortion by any stretch) but I think even the founders knew that interpreting these with regard to actual law would be a total nightmare.

It's a great quote and concept of course- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it's just not a counter to an actual bill of rights argument.

And no, the 9th amendment doesn't make it explicit. Just because you can claim a right to say, liberty in a natural sense- and be right- doesn't mean you can then claim it as your right to say, not pay taxes as part of your liberty. Numerous nutballs have tried this very argument- and lost.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bringing up "life liberty and persuit of happiness" in a bill of rights argument... just... stop already.

And your argument is... people have no right to life? Please do go on. I want to hear you tell us no compromise on guns because we have no right to survive them.

 

[pcgeek11]

I was responding to Tajjy, not you, bro.

You posted absolutes about the words in the bill of rights, which is why I explicitly asked you about your membership in a militia (after all, if one were an absolutist/originalist, they could only ever support free ownership of guns if they were in a militia, because constitution).

anyhoo, you responded appropriately.

Tajjy is an idiot, and responded with some 1903 statute, which has nothing to do with an absolutist stance on the Bill of Rights.

Fair enough.