Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Why is owning a gun a big deal for you Americans?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 408 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 12:19:43 AM PST
Yep. It sucks that it's come to this, but more and more a gun is becoming just as important as a seat belt.

You hope you'll never have to use it, but you'll be glad you had it when you need it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 9:33:16 PM PST
This.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 6:25:43 AM PST
It depends on what part of town you live in. Some streets are unsafe in the cities and some areas are unsafe out in the country. If there were no criminals with guns then we wouldn't feel the need to protect ourselves with guns. In cities with gang members and drug dealers who have guns, it is wise to have a gun to protect yourself and your family if/when necessary. Criminals are cowards and use guns to get what they want especially when they are desperate. Not everyone lives in a nice neighborhood or in a protected environment. If the President can have armed body guards, then we all should be allowed to protect ourselves in the same way.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 6:11:45 AM PST
Cats Go Nyan says:
Trademark Global 15-Inch Jungle Master Hunting Knife

Posted on Nov 11, 2012 6:10:31 AM PST
The bad guys will always have guns. If American's right to bear arms was taken away by a new law, the bad guys would still use guns. Criminals don't obey the law and taking away guns from us law-abiding citizens would leave us at a disadvantage. We would then need to find other means to protect ourselves, like chemicals, homemade explosives, poison darts, crossbows, swords, knives, flame throwers, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 5:05:38 AM PST
Nope.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 10:50:16 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Sooo I have to like it then?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 10:17:46 PM PST
That's generally how it works.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:41:32 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Yeah I'm aware. You asked my opinion tho. When decisions come down strictly by party lines, it takes something away from them in my opinion.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:37:51 PM PST
SCOTUS decisions are generally not bipartisan. It's not like they can reach a compromise in the same way that the legislature (allegedly) can. Either something is legal, or it is not.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:34:57 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Not really. I'd prefer it be bipartisan for a decision like that. But that's not the political world we live in anymore.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:25:12 PM PST
"To do so would be contrary to contemporary political philosophy, as the Founders did not believe that rights derived from the government, but came from nature or god."

I agree with this philosophy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:24:03 PM PST
"You include that language as an argument against people who would refute the following clause, not to limit the following clause."

That makes sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:22:51 PM PST
So would you take a Democrat-majority precedent?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:21:56 PM PST
Exactly.

There was supposedly a dog that looked like a pit bull that was put to death in Ireland for looking like a pit bull. This may be a myth. I forgot what Snopes said.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:20:47 PM PST
"Particularly if they attack in groups of 2 on my signal."

I got a chuckle out of that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 9:20:21 PM PST
"The whole 'there's no standing army, in times of need the country will be defended by citizen volunteers who bring their own weapons' is sort of charmingly out-dated."

It is outdated, but I feel Heinlein best summed up a similar line of thinking about volunteers. "If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 2:17:40 PM PST
DVvM says:
That's not a collective right. If a right applies to every individual who is member of a collective independent of their membership in the collective, it is an individual right.

I personally don't believe there are such things as collective rights, merely rights of individuals applied in parallel or in series.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 2:15:10 PM PST
ranken says:
We like to shoot people

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 1:24:02 PM PST
AndrewA says:
You've determined that it is a justification clause. I haven't seen any evidence that it has to be one, especially when the rest of the BoR was written so clearly without one. And just because the Bill of Rights was made to say what government has no right to do to people, doesn't mean that they wanted free gun rights for everyone. We'll never know whether they did or not, but the first part of that argument does not guarantee the second part.

As for what the law of the land is now, I'm not arguing what it is considered. Nor am I arguing that it is wrong. I'm arguing that the justification for it isn't right. And why wouldn't the founding fathers understand collective rights versus individual rights? The only reason the Revolution succeeded was because they stood together for collective rights, i.e., the right of the people to have representation before taxation. Or is that not a collective right?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 1:10:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 1:12:14 PM PST
DVvM says:
What I don't understand is why you think a justificatory clause is limiting, rather than justifying? It doesn't have to mean anything (it could just be there stylistically) but it could easily be considered a deliberate provocation of Great Britain (in which only the wealthy were allowed to own guns) as the various justificatory clauses that were removed concerning libelous statements clearly were.

Considering that the Founders believed that all people have all rights until some are taken away by entering into the social contract, and the Bill of Rights is an enumeration not of what rights you have, but on what rights the government will not infringe upon, how on earth can you read that first clause as saying "this is the only context in which you have this right."

So it depends on what context you want to discuss it in. If you're talking about "what is the law of the land now" then yes, gun ownership is considered an individual right. If you're talking about "what the Founders intended the right to mean, then I sincerely believe they intended to have it be an individual right (I'm not even sure that the notion of "collective rights" would even be understood by Madison, Jefferson, et al.)

Seriously though, read the Heller decision, I bet you'd find it interesting: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:58:39 PM PST
AndrewA says:
So because the Supreme Court this century came up with an interpretation that fit what the conservative majority wanted it to fit, I'm wrong to think otherwise? How easy would it have been to leave the Militia part out of the amendment if they didn't want it to have meaning? They had no problem taking all the other justifications out.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:49:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 12:54:42 PM PST
DVvM says:
Have you never edited something?

A lot of times you change the structure for variety, or better sound, not because you have any interest in changing the meaning.

But I think the key thing that you're missing is that interpreting language in legal documents is inherently a messy and ambiguous process, as lawyers are paid to come up with interpretations of the law that fits what they want. That's why we have legal cases decided by human judges and not by computers or by table-lookups.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:45:50 PM PST
AndrewA says:
So they took out justification clauses for 9 of the 10 amendments and decided the last one was okay with one? How does that make sense?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:39:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 12:45:26 PM PST
DVvM says:
But many contemporary State Constitutions included similar wording in cases where the preceeding clause is never intended to limit the following clause.

I mean, Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had justificatory clauses for all of the amendments.

No contemporary use of this structure was ever intended to specify a restriction on the right so enumerated. To do so would be contrary to contemporary political philosophy, as the Founders did not believe that rights derived from the government, but came from nature or god. Specifically one naturally has all rights, but some are (rightly) taken away by governments, the Bill of Rights was an enumeration not of what rights you had, but of what rights the government was not allowed to take away. Any reading by which the government is granting the right to own guns in one case or another would be unthinkable to the Founders, and any reading of 18th century political philosophy (e.g. Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, etc.) will show that.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  68
Total posts:  408
Initial post:  Nov 8, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions