Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

[Heracles 417]

For real. And, I believe you now see how absurd licensing a Bible would be. Yet, for some reason, you think licensing another of my rights - bearing arms - is reasonable. How is that possible?

Once again, you are comparing objects to a weapon and don't seem to grasp the difference. You seem to confuse a gun that can kill 15 people in under a minute to a lamp, because a lamp can kill too. Yet you fail to show me cases of where a dozen people have been murdered using a lamp or any other object that your mind can think of.

Yep. We should totally do away with the entire 1st Amendment and that whole pursuit of happiness thing as well. We just shouldn't be doing that anymore since it's antiquated and we're "more developed."

Pick and choose all you want. You're just solidifying the case and reinforcing what the article said.

Actually, I have always said various sections of the Constitution need to be ratified, to remove the ambiguity and vagueness of it. This ambiguity and vagueness is why it's open to individual judicial interpretation. You're confusing me for a lib, which you legitimately have an argument against.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,514]

who cares about being 5 times higher per capita.

Not me. I don't care in the slightest.

Once again, you are comparing objects to a weapon and don't seem to grasp the difference.

What is the difference?

I have a constitutional right to own a firearm and a book. How can you possibly sit there and tell me the government can infringe upon my rights to one, but not the other. Can you honestly, in good faith, not see the connection between restricting one right leading to restriction of others?

You seem to confuse a gun that can kill 15 people in under a minute to a lamp, because a lamp can kill too. Yet you fail to show me cases of where a dozen people have been murdered using a lamp or any other object that your mind can think of.

Is murdering someone with a gun more illegal than murdering them with a lamp?

Oh, I get it. Murdering 12 people in under a minute is more illegal than murdering one in over a minute.

Actually, I have always said various sections of the Constitution need to be ratified, to remove the ambiguity and vagueness of it. This ambiguity and vagueness is why it's open to individual judicial interpretation. You're confusing me for a lib, which you legitimately have an argument against.

People say the constitution was written with ambiguity and vagueness but I just don't see that. I see very simple language.

[Heracles 417]

Not me. I don't care in the slightest.

Great but that doesn't change the reality that your argument of it making a place safer being incorrect.

What is the difference?

I have a constitutional right to own a firearm and a book. How can you possibly sit there and tell me the government can infringe upon my rights to one, but not the other. Can you honestly, in good faith, not see the connection between restricting one right leading to restriction of others?

No I cannot actually, as cannot billions of other people. This fantasy is purely a result of your personal circumstances.

Is murdering someone with a gun more illegal than murdering them with a lamp?

Oh, I get it. Murdering 12 people in under a minute is more illegal than murdering one in over a minute.

So find me the equivalent articles of 12 people being murdered using a lamp or any other object. Now compare the volume of such stories to that of homicides using guns. What does deductive reasoning tell you?

People say the constitution was written with ambiguity and vagueness but I just don't see that. I see very simple language.

Of course, I guess the supreme court judges who disagree with one another [and regularly] must simply not get it as well as you do.

[Ban Hammer 12,857]

So find me the equivalent articles of 12 people being murdered using a lamp or any other object. Now compare the volume of such stories to that of homicides using guns. What does deductive reasoning tell you?

people should be outlawed!

[Atencio 43]

Actually, I have always said various sections of the Constitution need to be ratified, to remove the ambiguity and vagueness of it. This ambiguity and vagueness is why it's open to individual judicial interpretation. You're confusing me for a lib, which you legitimately have an argument against.

Despite your wishes you will always have a point or argument that just doesn't quite fit in to what is written. I write hospital policies for a living and I can tell you despite the best of efforts you can never cover every angle. It becomes a case where the less that is written the better. That allows for interpretation if needed. Now instead of changing the Constitution every two months to cover new cases the United States allowed the Supreme Court to give their opinions on what the constitution means. And despite your wishes that the second amendment be clarified to satisfy your wishes I really don't see the political environment ever doing so. It is just too big a political tug-o-war.

[HannahP 119]

Not me. I don't care in the slightest.

What is the difference?

I have a constitutional right to own a firearm and a book. How can you possibly sit there and tell me the government can infringe upon my rights to one, but not the other. Can you honestly, in good faith, not see the connection between restricting one right leading to restriction of others?

?

So, like, if I want to marry another woman. And I do. Can I marry a dog? Or a small child? Where does it end?!

[Heracles 417]

Despite your wishes you will always have a point or argument that just doesn't quite fit in to what is written. I write hospital policies for a living and I can tell you despite the best of efforts you can never cover every angle. It becomes a case where the less that is written the better. That allows for interpretation if needed. Now instead of changing the Constitution every two months to cover new cases the United States allowed the Supreme Court to give their opinions on what the constitution means. And despite your wishes that the second amendment be clarified to satisfy your wishes I really don't see the political environment ever doing so. It is just too big a political tug-o-war.

I am not talking about covering every angle. In contrast to other constitutions, the US is quite vague and ambiguous - end of story. Is it ever going to change, of course not.

Many on here won't even accept that others offer a higher Q.O.L; where the average Joe is wealthier, lives longer, is healthier and even has a bigger house. Nope don't care. So the chance of you guys ever logically looking at and ratifying the Constitution is never.

[Atencio 43]

And yet everyone wants to come here, go figure.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I am not talking about covering every angle. In contrast to other constitutions, the US is quite vague and ambiguous - end of story. Is it ever going to change, of course not.

Many on here won't even accept that others offer a higher Q.O.L; where the average Joe is wealthier, lives longer, is healthier and even has a bigger house. Nope don't care. So the chance of you guys ever logically looking at and ratifying the Constitution is never.

I've read that Qatar is unbelievable. Much better QOL than Australia.

[Heracles 417]

And yet everyone wants to come here, go figure.

Immigration stats tend to suggest that 92% of PR are from 2nd and 3rd world countries. Hardly everyone.

Anyways, not going to attempt to discuss this topic again, as it always ends up in TOS violations and people relying on opinions rather than facts. For example, who says the studies are correct.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Heracles

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Immigration stats tend to suggest that 92% of PR are from 2nd and 3rd world countries. Hardly everyone.

Anyways, not going to attempt to discuss this topic again, as it always ends up in TOS violations and people relying on opinions rather than facts. Like who says the studies are correct.

Then why don't you try using facts instead? Obscure studies hardly support your point of view.

[Heracles 417]

Then why don't you try using facts instead? Obscure studies hardly support your point of view.

Responding to your BS and getting suspended again gets tiring.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Responding to your BS and getting suspended again gets tiring.

I shouldn't have been suspended. I was referring to people in general terms. I never said anything about you specifically. I was a victim of unfair moderation. You deserved the suspension.

[Heracles 417]

I shouldn't have been suspended. I was referring to people in general terms. I never said anything about you specifically. I was a victim of unfair moderation. You deserved the suspension.

Bullcrap. I actually made a legitimate argument that anytime someone [anyone] mentions another country, you attack them. Yet got suspended for pointing this out.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Heracles

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Bullcrap. I actually made a legitimate argument that anytime someone [anyone] mentions another country, you attack them. Yet got suspended for pointing this out.

You didn't get suspended for posting that, you got suspended for a personal attack. I didn't specifically call you a name. I made a general reference about certain types of people, and I got suspended. It was really not fair. I am reformed. I just stick to the facts and tell it like it is.