1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Elementary school shooting

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Sloth, 14 Dec 2012.

  1. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    I included the entire constitution, I wasn't cherry picking, key word being: unconstitutional.

    @ Nexxo: I'm not getting things mixed up here, not at all.

    That's where the constitution comes into play, which is why government is attacking it.

    That's were you're wrong. It is in the governments interest, don't get confused.
     
    Last edited: 27 Dec 2012
  2. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    297
    Explain?
     
  3. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    Not sure if you changed my username on purpose?

    How is gun control in the government's interest?
     
  4. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    If it is not in my interest, or in the interest of the American population....means it leaves us with the government.
     
  5. mucgoo

    mucgoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    9 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    41
    You believe an uprising would have the slightest hope of success against the incredibly well funded US military?
     
  6. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    That is false logic.

    How is it in the government's interest?
     
  7. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    297
    Something to try and stop nutters buying guns isn't in your interest?
     
  8. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    In fairness, bearing arms really has no bearing on what arms. Remember that this was drafted in the 1700s. We've gone a long way from that time. To try to apply centuries old logic to a modern dilemma would at best be detrimental and disastrous at worst. Look at the archaic patent system. And that's been revised many times over the last century.

    The thing about the American Republic (or any republic/democracy) for that matter is that it's still a system of exchange. Transactional behavior is what ensures that it survives. We abide by the laws and the Government provides us with services and a modicum of protection. Yes I can see where you're going with the rights, but the right to bear arms is actually a rather open right. It could mean that we're allowed to own assault rifles. Or Howitzers. Or maybe just arms. As in actual arms.

    Absurdities aside, banging on about the constitution (as a rather cynical American) to me is in itself rather absurd as most of the Constitution has either been amended or modified in the form of the Supreme Court and Congress to an extent.
     
  9. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    Unless you believe governments represent the best interest of the people then it's not.

    To see people rip on the constitution almost dismissing it without actually having read it is to me not only absurd, but also dangerous.

    It would be nice to see civics brought back to the curriculum.
     
    Last edited: 27 Dec 2012
  10. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    Once again I will repeat the question.

    Why is it in the governments interest?
     
  11. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    Since we are left with government, you would have to ask them.
     
  12. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    Again, I will ask the question for the third time.

    Why is it in the governments interest?
     
  13. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23
    It must be awful being an American. Living with the fear of your government becoming some sort of dictatorship, and having to keep an arsenal at home so that your government won't mess with you. Having to keep weapons in your houses just to feel safe at night, I pity anyone who feels that sense of paranoia, I really do.

    One convincing argument against gun ownership, which I have yet to see any pro gun advocates successfully rebuff, is that most illegal guns in the US began life as legally owned guns. Many legal owners lost their guns, had them stolen or sold them on the black market for easy cash. Many legal gun owners are often careless with what are purely lethal weapons.
     
  14. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    My point is though, we can hold onto the constitution as much as we want but the fact is, much of the original statements have had addendum to it. I've read it. Quite thoroughly. Sure it outlines some extremely important rights. That said, constitutional rights have (more than once) been ignored in history. Admittedly it doesn't justify any more infringements, but there's a definite risk in clamoring over the Constitution especially given our own very....interesting Constitutional past involving court rulings.

    On one hand I could be a strict constructionist and say that the Constitution is law and tantamount, unchangeable too. But to do that would emulate the approach that Justice Scalia and Thomas take. Which generally is farcical.

    I'm not trying to insult anyone, but given the history of the Supreme Court, more often than not matters of constitutionality are almost always open for argument. In the case of an Assault Rifle ban, it's been done before. In the case of background checks for guns and registration? It's hardly that much of an inconvenience. Unless we could somehow re-mold society into one that cares enough and has enough control over each other to not have so many shootings, legislation is a good start.

    Also walle, if we want an assault on our constitution start on our 14th and 1st Amendments. Citizen's United was far more damaging to our rights than any legislation that may impact guns.
     
  15. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    And I will answer for the second time then, you would have to ask them.
     
  16. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    Wow, when you can't answer a question you really do just avoid it.

    Stop making statements that you cannot defend.
     
  17. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    You're right that there has been damage done, and people often do tend to focus on only a few specific amendments, whilst overlooking the others.

    Good post.

    Let's try this then: I can't speak for the government, sorry.
     
  18. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    Then why say that gun control is in their interest? If you cannot speak for them then how can you make that statement?
     
  19. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,121
    Likes Received:
    364
    You should also defend the 18th amendment...
     
  20. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    If it is not in my interest, or in the interest of the American population....means it leaves us with the government, remember?

    The logical conclusion then, is that it would be in the governments interest.

    As to why they would want to do this I don't know, as I've told you - I can't speak for the government.
     

Share This Page