Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 408 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:22:17 PM PST
Yes. I need to know why.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:22:46 PM PST
AndrewA says:
According to your buddy dvvm, i don't have the right to disagree with what scotus says. Which is why we are arguing.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 10:24:04 PM PST
MrnDpty161 says:
It's a fundemental right that insures the rest of your constitonal rights and liberties are protected should the institutions of government becomes corrupt and despotic, just like failed municipalities across cities in the United States that do a poor job in keeping the peace ie: Chicago, Mempis, Philledphia. Your ownership of a weapon is seconds away versus the police who are minutes away when your freshly born child and wife are endangered by a criminal breaking into your home. The day it's all gone is the day you become an easy target to both the malicious and the tyrannical.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:24:37 PM PST
I agree with all that too. I hope you voted for Gary Johnson!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:24:56 PM PST
DVvM says:
You can disagree with the SCOTUS.

You cannot disagree on the SCOTUS on the grounds "no, what the Constitution really means is this."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:25:07 PM PST
AndrewA says:
What isn't adequately defined in the sentence they provided? And I never said i can read the minds of dead people. But you can enjoy attacking your straw man if you want to.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:27:36 PM PST
My political science professor is a raging socialist, member of that party in Massachusetts, has long hair, looks like he hasn't shaved since the the 1990s, and has no love for the Democrats. He most certainly never wore tweed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:30:02 PM PST
DVvM says:
Of the top of my head, some things that are ambiguous: What constitutes a "militia"? What makes one well-regulated? What, precisely, constitute "arms"? What is the connection between the first clause and the second?

Those are all things that reasonable people could quibble on.

And as for "reading the minds of dead people" I can't see any other way you could possibly be able to claim to understand what exactly the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:30:23 PM PST
I'm disenfranchised.

And no, I don't wanna hear it. I earned my right to vote or not vote in this system. I'm glad it's over for a couple years. This election season sucked.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 10:30:56 PM PST
Frank says:
Owning a gun is not a big deal in the US. It's the freedom to own a gun if we want to that's a big deal.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:31:45 PM PST
I believe she addresses this a few posts above this one.

@DV, are you my buddy?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:32:25 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Why can't I? SCOTUS isn't perfect. They get stuff wrong just like any human does. Whether I picked the right decision to argue this over is debatable, but just because what they say becomes the law doesn't mean that they are correct in their interpretation of the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:36:52 PM PST
DVvM says:
I don't think you understand how legal terms acquire their meaning.

In the legal system, a term or a clause acquires its meaning because "a judge says that this is what it means" and it retains that meaning until a higher ranking judge says otherwise. When you are dealing with the judges who aren't outranked by anybody else in the legal system, the meaning they decide on is final.

So you cannot disagree with the legal meaning of the second amendment until you are yourself on the Supreme Court and you have an opportunity to hear a case related to it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:39:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 10:43:28 PM PST
I wouldn't criticize someone for not voting. People have a right to vote or to not vote. I've always been wary of arguments like "it's your civic duty to vote" or "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain." You do have a right to complain if you don't like how things are going because the First Amendment says so, and it's not contingent on voting.

Besides the political system is so messed up. We have a one and half party system. We have the Democrat and Democrat Lite parties. Tastes great or less filling? Neither! I voted for the guy who had zero percent chance of winning just as a way of giving the middle finger to politics. Not voting does the same thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:44:32 PM PST
AndrewA says:
I judged their intent from the sentence they wrote. Which is the same thing the Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court ignored the first part of the sentence, I did not. So I think I judged their intent better. You can guess intent from what other people write. We do it every day here on the VGF, as text is the only way we all communicate with each other (for the most part). You are taking it to a ridiculous place for reasons I don't even care to understand.

As for the ambiguity, I think a militia constitutes more than one person, which eliminates the individual reasons for owning a gun. Well-regulated means there is a chain of command in the militia, even if it doesn't conform strictly to regular military, and arms means guns, whether it be a pistol or a musket or a bayonet. The first clause is the condition upon which the second clause is acceptable. I don't see why they would be separate clauses, or why the second would act independent of the first, considering the first means nothing without being connected to the second.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:52:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 10:55:44 PM PST
DVvM says:
The key difference between a layperson interpreting a sentence in a legal document and a judge or panel of judges interpreting a sentence in a legal document is that the former is guessing as to what the intent may be, while the latter is making law.

You think you've judged the framer's intent better than someone else did, but I'm sure there are people who disagree with you who believe that they (or the SCOTUS) have interpreted the framer's intent better than you have. It's not really convincing for people on either side to say "I'm right because I'm right."

Why can't the militia consist of one person? I disagree with that. If the militia consists of 3 people and two of them die, then the militia doesn't cease to be. Why does well-regulated mean that there's a chain of command and not something else. Saying "arms means guns" doesn't resolve the ambiguity here, as you'll be subsequently asked to define "guns" (how about a gatling gun or a anti-materiel rifle? How about a M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System tactical nuclear recoilless gun? That last one even has "gun" in the name, but no one (not even the military) should have one.) Why do you believe that the first clause creates a condition and not just a justification?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:53:20 PM PST
AndrewA says:
If you want to say that I can't change the legal meaning of the second amendment, then you are perfectly right. You can't say that I can't disagree with it. There is no law that says I can't say the Supreme Court is wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:57:50 PM PST
If it was the intention of the founding fathers to say that the individual right to bear arms was contingent on the existence of a militia, and that the right was void once militias were disbanded, they would have specified that. You are putting extra meaning into the sentence that is not there. Also, what about the "shall not be infringed" part at the end of the sentence? That pretty much states that the right is universal.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:00:16 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Where else in the Bill of Rights did they provide justifications for their amendments instead of conditions? Why would the second amendment be the only one that had a justification?

And I'm not saying I'm right because I'm right. I'm saying I'm right because I think the sentence as provided provides a clear condition for owning guns. If other people want to disagree with my assertion they are more then welcome to. Telling me I'm not allowed to disagree with the lawmakers goes to a different level entirely.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:04:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 11:06:50 PM PST
DVvM says:
Did you know that justification clauses were very common in state bills of rights during the framing era? It was a common structure in constitutional language in the late 18th century, and even well into the 19th. Why they only used it in that one amendment, you would have to ask them. But it was never used in any other context to limit the expression of a codified right.

For example:

The Rhode Island constitution of 1842 states: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that libert"

The 1784 New Hampshire constitution states: "In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed"

The The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, and the 1786 Vermont Constitution read: "The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever"

See, for many more references: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 11:06:39 PM PST
Besides Andrew, even if it was the founding father's intention that the right to bear arms was contingent on the existence of a militia, it still doesn't mean that right is now void because militias don't exist in the sense that they did in the 1700s. The National Guard is the current day militia. The intention of the National Guard is as a militia to supplement the full time military. So technically the individual right to bear arms is still valid because we still have a militia. If your interpretation were to be considered correct by the Supreme Court, we would have to disband the National Guard in order to make the right to bear arms void. That's certainly not going to happen since the full time military is stretched thin as it is and we depend heavily on the National Guard.

Bazookas for everyone!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:06:55 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Or that you just have to say that you are keeping your guns for militia purposes should law enforcement try to take them from you. I'm not putting any extra meaning into the sentence. Militias weren't long standing armies. They were called upon when the need arose for one, especially back then when the Continental Army wasn't exactly a juggernaut like our army is today. They made the amendment in the first place because the redcoats were trying to seize their weapons, and they wanted to make sure that that couldn't happen again should militias ever need to be called on again. Unless my history textbooks were wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:11:28 PM PST
AndrewA says:
And yet, the most important bill of rights had no justification clauses, unless you consider the second amendment as having one. I find it odd that they would be so clear on the other nine, and not clear on the second one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:15:23 PM PST
DVvM says:
But, serious question. Did Rhode Island (in their 1842 Constitution) intend to extend the freedom to publish whatever they want only to the press and not to private individuals?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 11:15:32 PM PST
Well regulated certainly means, at least in part, that there is a chain of command.

Do you know what the chain of command is?
[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