10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Conserative Morality]

Where do the grabbers get the idea that they are owed anyone giving up their rights? THAT is what we are doing: giving up our rights, so we damn sure are owed something in return.

Tch, so entitled.

[Jamzmania]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Thank you for proving what he said.

I am willing to be he was a far more responsible gun owner then you.

Speaking of the second amendment. What about that well regulated part.

See my response to Gauthier.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Well? I would follow my uncles explanation. His was much longer but I will reduce it.

Gun ownership isn't a right. It's a privilege with responsibility.

Actually not bad, that. While I do think people have a right to protecting themselves and their loved ones, I wholeheartedly agree that it ought to be treated more as a priv with responsibility by many who don't. That said, there's a lot who already do, and they're the ones we ought to look to as examples of how its done right. I grew up around a number of them. Not a one ever had any problems, nor their kids, nor the neighborhood - we all knew, and were aware, that they were not toys, not to be messed with, and were kept locked up. Well, except the bb guns and we were still careful with those, because its still a gun, even if its not designed to outright murderate things.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Rights aren't set in concrete. What did the southern states get post civil war for relinquishing the rights to own slaves? Or is this only for rights that you agree with?

And please stop being so melodramatic. Crying and pretending the nasty gun grabbers will eventually take away all your guns makes you extremely difficult to debate with.

Considering they keep demanding more and more infringement and some have out-right stated they wish to ban guns outright, I wouldn't call it "Crying and pretending" The gun-grabbers KNOW they don't have the support to repeal thee Second Amendment or enact a total ban, so they go about it piecemeal. I am not being melodramatic. I am pointing out historical facts.

They keep demanding more and more because the only legislation that can get passed the house and senate is utter bullshit that prevents absolutely nothing. The current legislation in the US is a joke that's difficult for gun owners to work around and completely ineffectual because it's missing certain elements that look awfully similar to the much-feared gun registration.

[Allanea]

The "responsibility" of gun ownership is "not to murder people and to use your guns safely", not to agree with whatever political proposal is made out about guns.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

Because we have a right?

A right that no other country has.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because we have a right?

A right that no other country has.

And?

[Allanea]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Thank you for proving what he said.

I am willing to bet he was a far more responsible gun owner then you.

Speaking of the second amendment. What about that well regulated part.

I think I said this previously in this thread, but here's a repost:

There's several problems with the "the Second Amendment is a collective right" argument.

1. The basic grammar of the sentence. "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 necessity of the militia is part of the prefatory clause - it does not actually modify the meaning of the operative clause neither grammatically nor legally. The plain english is - "because we need a militia, we will protect the RKBA".

A similarity would be "A well-educated electorate being necessary for a functioning democracy, the right to read and write books shall not be infringed."

No, 50 Shades of Grey readers are not the well-educated electorate one would have in mind, they're still protected.

2. The National Guard is a professional military force. It fights abroad when ordered, and is controlled by the President. Even if we grant momentarily that the 2nd Amendment only covers service in the militia, the National Guard is not one.

3. Even if we granted momentarily the 2nd Amendment only covers service in the militia, current law defines all males aged 17 to 45 as members of the militia. (10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes).

4. More imporantly, we know that the Founders wanted the average American to have a right to access to firearms for self-defense. We know this not only because of the extensive writings of the Fouoders on the topic of gun ownership, but also because the same people who crafted the US constitution also crafted the constitutions of the several states, many of which contain gun rights provisions dating back to the period.

5. Furthermore, when the Constitution was revisited by Congress in the aftermath of the Civil War, a major concern of Congress at the time was violations of the RKBA by Southern governments. It was one of the concerns that led to the framing of the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, the highest authority in terms of the meaning of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consistently ruled time and time again that there's an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court's main ruling on this issue - (District of Columbia versus Heller) also contains all the legal history and historical references you need to learn about to form a good idea of how the 2nd Amendment jurisprudence works.

For now, the court precedent is that while some gun controls are constitutionally permissible, there's a right to own and carry firearms that are useful for personal defense. The court specifically rejected the argument that we can ban firearms simply because a given technology did not exist during the founding era.

(Naturally I consider Heller to be overly narrow, but there's still hope for future cases to refine the constitutional law)

[Big Jim P]

That is the point: gun-owners have "compromised" repeatedly by the gun-grabbers false, one-sided game repeatedly in the past only to be met with more demands. Why should we continue to do so? Only an idiot continues to play a rigged game.

Did you read this bit?
"Don't give up a bargaining tool and then get annoyed that they didn't reciprocate without prior agreement to do so."
It's not a compromise if only one side gives. So either you have surrendered you rights, not compromise, or the "gun-grabbers" have compromised.

Fighting to keep the rights you already have is hardly an extreme position.

Except

Is not just fighting to keep existing rights but to remove restrictions altogether.
(I would love to confirm and quote the statement in referring too but I'm on my phone now and it can't go that far back without a lot of hassle)

When thee gun-grabbers quit calling their one-sided exchange "compromise", quit misrepresenting and/or exaggerating facts, recognize the benefits of gun ownership and educate them selves with some basic firearms knowledge, then I will listen to them.

1. Again you're operating under the assumption, likely false, that all who want gun regulation and/or restriction are "gun-grabbers" who misrepresent and exaggerate facts and are uneducated about the position they have taken. This, quite frankly, is needlessly insulting.
2. Tho essentially boils down to the "lalalalala I can't hear you" argument.

1: A great may gun-grabbers display a woeful ignorance concerning gun (and in this age of the internet, where the information is freely available, that ignorance can only be assumed to be willful ignorance: I.E> stupidity), and Bloomberg and his shills (the most prominent gun-grabber) have been caught exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts. Not insulting.

2: Oh, I here them. Spouting the same old bullshit: "Compromise". Give us what we want. Then we will demand more. You want something? Tough. Give us more.

[Imperializt Russia]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Thank you for proving what he said.

I am willing to bet he was a far more responsible gun owner then you.

Speaking of the second amendment. What about that well regulated part.

"Well-regulated", "militia" and "the people" can, interpretation depending, give conflicting meanings.

The simplest interpretation, given the legal definition of "militia" in the USC, means that the 2nd Amendment extends the right to bear arms to all male citizens of militia age which is, IIRC, 18-45, since males of 18-45 (unless incorrect) are automatically considered militia.
Use of "the people" arguably expands this to everyone else the Constitution includes.

Since the 2nd Amendment, of course, harks from the time when militia were expected to organise themselves as a local group, and that local group would have been effective without external support.

[Val Halla]

Funny, how some of the pro gun conservatives (Not all) defend the constitution to the death when it comes to the second amendment when it comes to this, but when it comes to equal marriage rights and the separation of church and state, they're in favour of breaking it. Vice versa with some liberals.

[Big Jim P]

Ignoring the part that goes, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," I see.

"Well-regulated militia" comes to mind, seeing as being part of the nation's militia is a privilege and 'well-regulated' implies responsibility in involved on some level.

Already addressed:

Unless you're actually part of an active militia then you're the one doing the Jim Carrey impression.

All able bodied citizens are the militia. Yep, I am one of those. The right is an individual one in any event. Jut like every other Constitutional right. Please feel free to play again.

[The Black Forrest]

Funny, how some of the pro gun conservatives (Not all) defend the constitution to the death when it comes to the second amendment when it comes to this, but when it comes to equal marriage rights and the separation of church and state, they're in favour of breaking it. Vice versa with some liberals.

Indeed. It's interesting when people argue strict definitions for the things they don't like and interpretation for the things they do like.

[Big Jim P]

Considering they keep demanding more and more infringement and some have out-right stated they wish to ban guns outright, I wouldn't call it "Crying and pretending" The gun-grabbers KNOW they don't have the support to repeal thee Second Amendment or enact a total ban, so they go about it piecemeal. I am not being melodramatic. I am pointing out historical facts.

You know what?

Fuck it.

I'm now in support of repealing the 2nd amendment at this point, for the sole reason of not having to hear this bullshit anymore.

Feel free and good luck.

[Imperializt Russia]

Funny, how some of the pro gun conservatives (Not all) defend the constitution to the death when it comes to the second amendment when it comes to this, but when it comes to equal marriage rights and the separation of church and state, they're in favour of breaking it. Vice versa with some liberals.

Indeed. It's interesting when people argue strict definitions for the things they don't like and interpretation for the things they do like.

It's almost as though people = shit.

[The Black Forrest]

The "responsibility" of gun ownership is "not to murder people and to use your guns safely", not to agree with whatever political proposal is made out about guns.

If only every gun owner was responsible.

[Big Jim P]

Where do the grabbers get the idea that they are owed anyone giving up their rights? THAT is what we are doing: giving up our rights, so we damn sure are owed something in return.

Tch, so entitled.

Entitled to my rights. Indeed.

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 Black Forrest]

Tch, so entitled.

Entitled to my rights. Indeed.

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.

So the only free states in the world are armed?

[Big Jim P]

Because we have a right?

A right that no other country has.

Not our problem.

[Imperializt Russia]

tbh I'm fairly certain that the last century of history has demonstrated that militias are not necessary to the security of the US.

When America was the thirteen colonies and still a little awkward with the Brits, it was. Then America absorbed most of North America. Then the USN happened.

[Big Jim P]

The "responsibility" of gun ownership is "not to murder people and to use your guns safely", not to agree with whatever political proposal is made out about guns.

If only every gun owner was responsible.

If only everyone was.

[Gauthier]

A right that no other country has.

Not our problem.

Also known as "I've Got Mine, Fuck Everyone Else".

[The Black Forrest]

If only every gun owner was responsible.

If only everyone was.

Yet you and others often imply gun owners are responsible.

[Alvecia]

Did you read this bit?
"Don't give up a bargaining tool and then get annoyed that they didn't reciprocate without prior agreement to do so."
It's not a compromise if only one side gives. So either you have surrendered you rights, not compromise, or the "gun-grabbers" have compromised.



Except

Is not just fighting to keep existing rights but to remove restrictions altogether.
(I would love to confirm and quote the statement in referring too but I'm on my phone now and it can't go that far back without a lot of hassle)



1. Again you're operating under the assumption, likely false, that all who want gun regulation and/or restriction are "gun-grabbers" who misrepresent and exaggerate facts and are uneducated about the position they have taken. This, quite frankly, is needlessly insulting.
2. Tho essentially boils down to the "lalalalala I can't hear you" argument.

1: A great may gun-grabbers display a woeful ignorance concerning gun (and in this age of the internet, where the information is freely available, that ignorance can only be assumed to be willful ignorance: I.E> stupidity), and Bloomberg and his shills (the most prominent gun-grabber) have been caught exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts. Not insulting.

2: Oh, I here them. Spouting the same old bullshit: "Compromise". Give us what we want. Then we will demand more. You want something? Tough. Give us more.

Ignoring that you chose to ignore everything else I said

1. "a great many gun-grabbers" define for me "gun-grabbers as you understand it and give me a percentage estimate of how many people who are pro-gun legislation you would consider to fit this definition. Am I a "gun-grabber"?
In the same paragraph you described "gun-grabbers" as "not insulting", you also described them as woefully ignorant, stupid, shills, and liars. Please reiterate how this is not insulting.
Also consider what difference is there between your use of "gun-grabbers" and someone elses use of "gun nut", for example.
2. You again ignored my points about compromise. If you have indeed compromised in the past then by definition they must have given you concessions for the ones you gave. Otherwise it is not compromise and neither you nor them has understood that.
Another question. If you hear them asking for more, why do you not squeeze some concessions out of them in return.

[Allanea]

Because we have a right?

A right that no other country has.

Sounds like there's 189 countries that need to get with the program.