Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 408 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:00:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 10:03:00 PM PST
The first part of the second Amendment does not invalidate the second part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part just gives a reason why the people have the right. The second part says it cannot be infringed. So even if we don't have militias, there still cannot be a law that infringes the right. As DVvM said, the Supreme Court came to this decision, as is their power to do so, so that is the law of the land. For all intents and purposes on the legal front, this argument has been laid to rest unless a future Supreme Court overturns the decision, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:03:57 PM PST
AndrewA says:
The only way the second amendment is ambiguous is if you ignore everything but, "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." There is plenty of ambiguity in that part of the sentence. Taken as a whole, I see no reason to add other interpretations to it. And I'm well aware of the Supreme Court's function. It doesn't make them infallible tho, which is exactly where your line of reasoning is heading towards.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:04:13 PM PST
wasnt the purpose of the Constitution and BoR's to make sure the US didnt and doesnt end up like britain?...whats the point of arming the militia when the militia is controlled by the government...if the government ever did or does become a tyrannical entity how would the people stand up against said entity with the militia being the only ones with the right to bear arms?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:04:32 PM PST
AndrewA says:
I think they call them Templars now.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:04:54 PM PST
Heh, that would be a nightmare.

You see, the thing is I don't care what rights are in the Constitution because a piece of paper cannot bestow rights. Neither, for that matter, can a government.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 10:06:06 PM PST
Why does the French run away from every battle, why does the Canadians never help, why do European countries always run back to the Brits then Brits ask us to help? Typical crap, everyone complains about Americans being over aggressive, but always ask for our help in the time of need. Irrrronnyyyy.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 10:06:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 10:14:21 PM PST
Besides, the fact that we don't have militias in the sense that they existed in the 1700s, doesn't mean they don't exist. The National Guard is the modern day militia. Therefore because the Constitution says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which we do have, I have the right to own guns. Now where is that bazooka?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:07:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 10:09:33 PM PST
So if I say "Because it sucks when it's raining and your hair gets wet, the right of the people to carry umbrellas shall not be infringed" am I saying that only people with hair should be able to carry umbrellas?

Do you really think that's the only conceivable interpretation of that sentence? Isn't it more likely that I'm just providing one of potentially many good reasons that people should be allowed to carry umbrellas?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:08:56 PM PST
But the thing is that your personal interpretation doesn't matter in any real sense. I mean, if you took a course on the Constitution and answered a question by stating that the SCOTUS didn't interpret this Amendment this way, you would be factually incorrect. Of course, any decent professor of such a class would have you writing on the reasons for agreeing or disagreeing, not on simply the facts.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:09:20 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Well, if the government in America needed to be overthrown, a new government would have to rise up to overthrow it, and the militias would fight for the second one. The people wouldn't rise up to create lawlessness and no government.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 10:10:27 PM PST
"if the government in America needed to be overthrown"

Lol, right.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:11:28 PM PST
I know. I'm just saying there are multiple ways to interpret this. But you can't criticize people for focusimg on the first part when you only focus on the second. In such a case, neither argument is useful.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:13:34 PM PST
In reality people can and do bestow rights on other people, or take them away. Those people have been either monarchs, dictators, emperors, elected representatives. The Constitution was written by people. The government is made up of people (sometimes of questionable intelligence). The Constitution and government exist for practical purposes to lay out rights, or take them away, and to generally run things because it's unrealistic to have a set of uniform rights and laws if everyone decided for themselves. It would be anarchy since many would just do what suits them at the expense of others.

Of course I could also make the point that ultimately God bestows rights on people but then all the angry Internet atheists will start derailing the thread and insulting people's religious beliefs, so I'll keep it on an Earthly level.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:14:21 PM PST
AndrewA says:
Except I'm not arguing what the SCOTUS interpreted. I'm arguing about whether I think it's right or not, and I doubt disagreeing with their decision would get me a lower grade than agreeing with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:14:49 PM PST
No one is saying that SCOTUS is infallible. They are only saying that SCOTUS has the final word on the interpretation of the law, which is the practical issue here. SCOTUS has certainly made horrible decisions in the past. It is certainly your right to disagree and argue with any SCOTUS decision. None of this changes the fact, however, that SCOTUS decides what the law means.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:15:52 PM PST
They would secede from the Union, forming their own independent nati--

Oh wait.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:17:10 PM PST
You haven't seen any documentaries about private militias, huh?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:17:44 PM PST
And those militias will be formed with who?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:18:03 PM PST
AndrewA says:
If you want to go this route, I would ask why you don't say there are more reasons, or that it is just one example, instead of stating it as the only case where being able to use an umbrella is not going to be infringed, especially when it is very important to know whether it's the only case, or an example of a case, for future generations who won't be able to ask you specifically.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:18:19 PM PST
lol...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:19:00 PM PST
Your problem is not "I disagree with the Supreme Court decision" your problem is the grounds on which you agree with it.

Since neither "this sentence containing multiple clauses and terms that aren't adequately defined has only one meaning" and "I can read the minds of dead people" are not convincing arguments.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:20:09 PM PST
Do I need to give a lot of reasons why people should be allowed to carry umbrellas? I don't really think I need to give any reasons, and giving one reason shouldn't invalidate that right in all other cases.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:20:29 PM PST
God given rights, human rights, natural rights, whatever you choose to call them. I believe that they exist. They exist independent of any government, although governments can certainly help defend them or take them away. I believe that owning the means to defend yourself is one of them. I belive that others include choosing what to put into your own body, and who you want to spend the rest of your life with are others.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 10:21:32 PM PST
It wouldn't. Not if you had a good professor, anyways. My Constitutional studies professor was awesome.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 10:21:55 PM PST
I should go back to school and take a political science class so I can argue with liberal professors who wear tweed jackets with leather elbow pads sewn into them. It's too bad I'm so old and am probably unteachable now though. Well at least we have the Internet to have these debates. I actually enjoy talking about Constitutional issues more than Republican, Democrat, Republican, Democrat. It really gets to the meat of how the country was founded and on what principles, and how it has evolved, better than the "us vs. them" distractions that have been the focus of politics so much. It's good stuff.
[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
 


 

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