View Poll Results: Should the right to bear arms be abolished

Voters
348. In order to vote on this poll, you must be a registered user and/or logged in
  • Yes

    77 22.13%
  • No

    134 38.51%
  • No but Stricter laws are needed

    94 27.01%
  • maybe

    2 0.57%
  • Some weapon types should be banned

    16 4.60%
  • Certain Weapons and attachments should be banned

    25 7.18%
Page 523 of 651 FirstFirst ... 23423473513519520521522523524525526527533573623 ... LastLast
Results 7,831 to 7,845 of 9758
  1. #7831
    Hardcover addict dupont2005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekerrIII View Post
    Please site a SC ruling that significantly and adversely impacted the 1st amendment.
    Adversely is a matter of opinion. Gun control being an adverse effect seems to be a matter of opinion as well. But there are regulations on free speech regardless, and when the internet brings new problems up, the SCOTUS decides if it's protected under free speech or not. And sometimes the stakes are pretty high according to some. Boring stuff really, but relating to net neutrality and things of that nature.
    The Copper Age is my Golden Age
    My 2014 1000 comic progress

  2. #7832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary_B View Post
    The last few pages of this thread only serve to strengthen my opinion that the current level of gun related US fatalities is acceptable to the general population there. I just don't get it. Why not strive to minimize the death rate?
    But then how could Val fantasize about shooting people for looking at her funny at the gas station?
    Visit the Ace Comics & Games Digital shopfront:
    http://www.acecomics.comicretailer.com

  3. #7833
    Imagination and Bravery Double 0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    13,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary_B View Post
    The last few pages of this thread only serve to strengthen my opinion that the current level of gun related US fatalities is acceptable to the general population there. I just don't get it. Why not strive to minimize the death rate?


    I think that some Americans believe in Social Darwinism. Somebody in this thread has been pushing it too. A few at that, but I'm sure they wouldn't admit it.


    They believe that the people dying via gun violence are either the "irresponsible gun owners" or the "illegal gun owners". Or anomalies; not enough to really be a problem (hence the "phobia" shit), hitting JUST the right spots (until it doesn't, then it becomes news).

    They believe that it is mostly the "criminals" that really do this, and they will kill each other off eventually, along with those who failed to help stop the violence ("all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Which IMO, is a bullshit idiom.)

    And that they should have the arms to defend themselves if any of those criminals were to spill out towards the "good, "decent" Americans.

    That, and you know, government's corrupt, lets "potentially" take over, etc.


    And if you can't tell, yes, I'm using coded terms on purpose.
    Last edited by Double 0; 10-31-2013 at 05:59 AM.
    "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."


    - Stanisław Jerzy Lec

    http://naijamanexe.tumblr.com

  4. #7834
    Elder Member Jeff Brady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,408

    Default

    Just a reminder that the NRA has absolutely no intention to be reasonable:

    NRA Blocked Law That Could Have Prevented Police From Fatally Shooting 13-Year-Old:

    Following a tragic incident in Northern California where police fatally shot a teenager whose pellet gun was mistaken for an assault weapon, questions are being raised over the National Rifle Association's role in blocking a 2011 state legislative proposal to require BB and pellet guns to be brightly colored in order to avoid confusion.

    On October 22, 13-year-old Andy Lopez was shot seven times by a sheriff's deputy in Santa Rosa, California. The deputy, identified by media as a "gun expert", apparently believed that the pellet gun Lopez carried was an AK-47 assault weapon. Indeed, an image from a law enforcement press conference taken by The Press Democrat demonstrates the similarity between the pellet gun and an assault weapon. The Sonoma County Sheriff's Department also released a photo of the pellet gun Lopez was carrying:
    Google is your friend. Have a question? Look it up. ∙ BlogSequential Salon

  5. #7835
    Senior Member finfangfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire, US
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valerie View Post
    Not true. First of all, none of what you mention qualifies as standard arms for anyone. They count as ordnance. Second of all, I only was refuting your idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to eighteenth century firearms, when no other amendment to the Constitution is subject to the same limitation. We don't apply the First Amendment only to religions and religious denominations that were around in the eighteenth century. We don't revisit the First Amendment and brand that out-of-date because of new developments in communication technology. We do mention the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments when it comes to developments and the increased use of surveillance technology, but that's only to reinforce that we still have the right to privacy.

    And it's ridiculous to think that there's going to be any "civil war" pitting "people with guns" against the US military- considering how many of the military are very pro-2A and have furthermore sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.
    We don't "brand the 1st amendment out of date", but we sure as s##t do update our laws to reflect changes in technology. It would be ridiculous not to. And as technology leads to more powerful and dangerous weaponry we do indeed make laws to restrict access and use of them. As has been previously said, there's no debate on whether or not the right to bear arms can be restricted. The fact that there are any laws at all regarding the use of arms shows that. It's just a question of how much access and to what weaponry.

    As to a potential conflict between armed civilians and the US military, soldiers in my experience are about as apt to be constitutional scholars as your average civilian citizen. The problem with a "civil war" type scenario has less to do with soldiers loving them their 2nd amendment and more with them having a problem shooting at US citizens. I'd imagine that would start to be less of a problem if those citizens started shooting at them. I think it's a lot more likely they'd follow orders than they would as a group decide to stage a military coup (and the idea of individuals turning against their fellow soldiers to follow personal feelings about gun ownership seems very unlikely to me).
    A Fool for the Foom

  6. #7836
    Senior Member finfangfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire, US
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valerie View Post
    It's clear that the framers of the Constitution intended for the states to recruit their militias from people who already owned and were proficient in the use of firearms. It makes it easier to focus on other areas of training when your recruits already know how to load, fire, field strip, clean, and reassemble their firearms. The militia was meant to be "well-regulated," meaning well-trained. That doesn't mean that the right to bear arms was to be restricted. Furthermore, the Second Amendment doesn't refer to the right of the state or the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but the right of the people.

    It is also legal for private citizens to own cannons, and it was during the eighteenth century. The Constitution also recognized the right of Congress to draft letters of marque to privately owned warships armed with- yes- privately owned cannons, so it was apparent that they found private ownership of cannons acceptable. However, the Second Amendment covers the right of the people to "keep and bear Arms." Any one of us could keep a cannon only on the condition that we have room for it. And good luck carrying one of those on your own. This is why many people interpret the Second Amendment to apply to firearms any one person can carry on his or her own.
    As to your point in the previous post on the difference between "arms" and "ordnance":

    OrdŽnance

    n. 1. Heavy weapons of warfare; cannon, or great guns, mortars, and howitzers; artillery; sometimes, a general term for all weapons, ammunition, and appliances used in war.

    (from Webster-dictionary.org, bold mine)

    Obviously if what you're saying is true about cannons being OK with the founding fathers (I can't use FF, it makes me think of the Fantastic Four in bad wigs and tri-corner hats) then other "ordnance" would seem to fit as well. Of course, that's ridiculous and if the SCOTUS said cannons were kosher tomorrow some idiot would hook one up to the back of his pick-up and start looking to "stand his ground" with it. I'd imagine the states, the congress, and the President would also be scrambling to make sure that cannons were immediately put on the no-go list where they belong.

    But the real point here that many on the other side of this argument seem not to get (and also original intent yahoos while we're at it) is that it isn't the 1700s. Maybe a rich white guy who owned several ships needed to outfit those ships with cannons back in the 1780s, but nobody today needs a cannon. When the US had a small population that controlled only a portion of the continent and were competing for land and resources with other European invaders and the native population, had no standing army, and relied upon personal firearms to provide food and also protection against very real and constant threats to their lives, and also when those personal firearms were on the cutting edge of weapons technology and evened the playing field between a man and just about any threat he faced (aside from those cannons perhaps) then the 2nd amendment, complete and not "infringed" upon made total sense.

    But it's the 21st century now, and our country has changed a great deal. Naturally the laws that govern it need to change accordingly.
    A Fool for the Foom

  7. #7837
    Elder Member mikekerrIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary_B View Post
    The last few pages of this thread only serve to strengthen my opinion that the current level of gun related US fatalities is acceptable to the general population there. I just don't get it. Why not strive to minimize the death rate?
    The violent death rate in the US has been going steadily down for half a century, The total number remaining flat while the population has nearly doubled. take out the war on drugs h and it would have dropped massively

    the total death rate for any population is always 100 percent.
    Pain shared is divided, joy shared is multiplied

  8. #7838
    Elder Member mikekerrIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    23,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dupont2005 View Post
    Yeah the military gets pissed off about a lot of crap. They tend to have contempt for civilians, that's what I just said. And since you like bringing up old news (the Revolutionary War is pretty old news), lets not forget Kent State. The United States Armed Forces would have no problem fighting an armed civilian rebellion, since they have no problem fighting an unarmed civilian protest.
    Yugo realty don't have a fucking clue do you, that is inferno level craziness (apologies to Inferno) and the example you are using happened well before you were born mostly due to a style of National Guard that the US has not had in 30 years or so.
    Pain shared is divided, joy shared is multiplied

  9. #7839
    Hey don't call. Gary_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    B.C. Canada
    Posts
    8,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Brady View Post
    Just a reminder that the NRA has absolutely no intention to be reasonable:

    NRA Blocked Law That Could Have Prevented Police From Fatally Shooting 13-Year-Old:
    In the crazy world we have allowed to evolve around us the NRA is being reasonable. They are working diligently for their corporate backers and they in turn are motivated by only one thing: making money for weapons and ammunition manufacturers. Human lives are of no consequence as long as corporate gun producers can keep increasing their profits.

  10. #7840
    Senior Member finfangfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire, US
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekerrIII View Post
    Yugo realty don't have a fucking clue do you, that is inferno level craziness (apologies to Inferno) and the example you are using happened well before you were born mostly due to a style of National Guard that the US has not had in 30 years or so.
    It's also why they usually give those guys tasers and pepper-spray, because then if they're dicks we don't get national tragedies. The more often you have guys standing around with guns, the quicker somebody ends up dead despite even the best of intentions.
    A Fool for the Foom

  11. #7841
    Senior Member Castel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Weird to see how tasers have turned into pretty much torture device used by polices around the world to intimidate people.

    I wonder if the dudes who came up with that invention had that in mind.

  12. #7842
    Senior Member Arvandor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, England
    Posts
    2,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castel View Post
    Weird to see how tasers have turned into pretty much torture device used by polices around the world to intimidate people.

    I wonder if the dudes who came up with that invention had that in mind.
    I'd still rather see the police armed with tasers than guns.
    virtue untested is innocence.
    When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember it is still an evil.

  13. #7843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iangould View Post
    But then how could Val fantasize about shooting people for looking at her funny at the gas station?
    And how could Ian make unfunny false accusations about me?

  14. #7844
    Senior Member Castel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    I'd still rather see the police armed with tasers than guns.
    The problem i have with that is the lack of consequences of their actions. A cop can tase the hell out of you and taking no crap for that. Even if it was totally unnecessary.

    Same with pepper spray. They used it as if it was a toy.

    But as much as the average cop likes to torment his fellow human being i think that most of them aren't going to use a gun until they think that the situation is really asking for it.

    But yeah, of course when it goes wrong...it goes really wrong.

  15. #7845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finfangfool View Post
    Of course, that's ridiculous and if the SCOTUS said cannons were kosher tomorrow some idiot would hook one up to the back of his pick-up and start looking to "stand his ground" with it.
    Nonsense. First of all, cannons are already legal, and they're most commonly used to fire blanks in civil war reenactments. Are you going to presume to tell historical reenactors that they don't need their cannons?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •