The gentrification of the second amendment.

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:18 am

Alright fine. Let's put it to the test.

You can choose any other enumerated constitutionally protected right from the Bill of Rights. We'll compare the amount of government regulation that you, as an individual who wishes to exercise that right, is up against in order to exercise the right. Fair enough?

Let's look at things like who can do it, where you can do it, when you can do it, etc. Alright?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:22 am

wack wack wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I'll take objective standards any day.


Of course, because you live in a vacuum.


Of course you would object to objectivity because

1) It doesn't go in your favor
2) It's equally valid for everyone
3) You wouldn't recognize it when you saw it
4) It grates on your severely myopic and narrow-minded viewpoint.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21623
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:26 am

When tobacco companies and their money controlled Congress, the FDA was allowed to regulate all foods and drugs except tobacco. That is no longer the case.

Now that the NRA and their money controls Congress, gun manufacturers cannot be held accountable if they produce faulty weaponry.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:30 am

Dangerousman wrote:We'll compare the amount of government regulation that you, as an individual who wishes to exercise that right, is up against in order to exercise the right. Fair enough?


Not really because the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically uses the term "regulated" in it's wording. By that mere word, it is intrinsically going to be more regulated than any others. I would argue that regulating the militia also regulates those arms they bear. You probably disagree.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:43 am

Dangerousman wrote:
wack wack wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I'll take objective standards any day.


Of course, because you live in a vacuum.


Of course you would object to objectivity because

1) It doesn't go in your favor
2) It's equally valid for everyone
3) You wouldn't recognize it when you saw it
4) It grates on your severely myopic and narrow-minded viewpoint.


This from a guy who decides what he wants, then looks for evidence to support his desires in a vacuum of theory, completely devoid of any relevance to the real world. Funny.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:33 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:We'll compare the amount of government regulation that you, as an individual who wishes to exercise that right, is up against in order to exercise the right. Fair enough?


Not really because the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically uses the term "regulated" in it's wording. By that mere word, it is intrinsically going to be more regulated than any others. I would argue that regulating the militia also regulates those arms they bear. You probably disagree.


Dead wrong, because the term isn't just "regulated" it's "well-regulated"-- a term that in the 18th Century meant something along the lines of "in good working order." But even if we went along with your incorrect definition of the term and pretended it meant "subject to regulations" that clearly refers to a "well-regulated militia" whereas the right of people "shall not be infringed." Do you believe the meaning of the word "infringed" is vague? Your interpretation makes no grammatical, logical or historical sense.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:39 pm

wack wack wrote:This from a guy who decides what he wants, then looks for evidence to support his desires in a vacuum of theory, completely devoid of any relevance to the real world. Funny.


Either put your arguments out for all to judge or STFU. You're stalling.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21623
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:39 pm

Absolutists want to ignore or minimize the first two clauses in the Second Amendment and pretend they don't qualify the right to bear arms. Notice there are no such qualifying clauses in the First Amendment, yet there are recognized limitations on the specific rights mentioned in the First.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:41 pm

I totally blew on topic week. FUUUUUCK.

Anyhow, this is no more productive than the gun thread. Peace out.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:03 am

Dangerousman wrote:
wack wack wrote:This from a guy who decides what he wants, then looks for evidence to support his desires in a vacuum of theory, completely devoid of any relevance to the real world. Funny.


Either put your arguments out for all to judge or STFU. You're stalling.


Are you unable to read? My arguments are all over this thread; below are the dates and times of the mostly topical ones (I left out the pure snark). I've been waiting for weeks for a response from you, and can only figure it's because you can't. To respond to my comments would mean leaving your talking points and NRA cage, possibly even requiring you to consider evidence that doesn't fit in your box.

Feel free to respond now to any of them now. And keep the STFU to yourself.

Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:00 am

Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:16 am

Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:19 pm

Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:17 am

Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:47 am

Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:53 am

Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:13 am

Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:51 am

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:00 pm

I agree your arguments are "all over" the place. Try for some coherence why don't you?

My comment was about Sno's claim that there is "hardly" any regulation of guns. That's what this discussion is about and you haven't said anything about that. Stay on topic or can't you read?

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:35 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I agree your arguments are "all over" the place. Try for some coherence why don't you?

My comment was about Sno's claim that there is "hardly" any regulation of guns. That's what this discussion is about and you haven't said anything about that. Stay on topic or can't you read?


I absolutely did respond to sno's absolutely correct assertion that there is hardly any regulation of guns. That's what you didn't like in the first place. Or did you forget that already?

You tried to apply an "objective" standard to the concept of regulation, something which is completely irrelevant in the real world.

You also try to lean on this concept of the Second Amendment as biblical: it cannot be questioned or changed. In the real world, automobiles are far more regulated than firearms; why? Because automobiles present problems, and society attempts to address those problems with regulation. Firearms also present problems, but for some reason we're not allowed to address them with regulation because of the unbending, unending, God-given Second Amendment.

You cannot possibly get to what you believe unless you decide what you want and work backwards. There is no legitimate evidence to support the desire for an unfettered Second Amendment; honest, legitimate evaluation will ALWAYS bring a reasonable, intelligent person to the conclusion that our gun regulation is insufficient.

You have nothing but questionable interpretations of an archaic clause in a nearly 250 year old document to lean on. You sure the hell wouldn't rely on 250 year old ideas for your medical care, but the ideas of men who could not possibly have conceived the social and technological issues facing our country are bigger than God.

It is absurd, in the truest sense of the word. There is no practical reason as to why firearms should not be the most highly regulated commodity in our society; yelling "Second Amendment!" is not a practical reason, and you have nothing else.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:54 pm

wack wack wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I agree your arguments are "all over" the place. Try for some coherence why don't you?

My comment was about Sno's claim that there is "hardly" any regulation of guns. That's what this discussion is about and you haven't said anything about that. Stay on topic or can't you read?


I absolutely did respond to sno's absolutely correct assertion that there is hardly any regulation of guns. That's what you didn't like in the first place. Or did you forget that already?

You tried to apply an "objective" standard to the concept of regulation, something which is completely irrelevant in the real world.

You also try to lean on this concept of the Second Amendment as biblical: it cannot be questioned or changed. In the real world, automobiles are far more regulated than firearms; why? Because automobiles present problems, and society attempts to address those problems with regulation. Firearms also present problems, but for some reason we're not allowed to address them with regulation because of the unbending, unending, God-given Second Amendment.

You cannot possibly get to what you believe unless you decide what you want and work backwards. There is no legitimate evidence to support the desire for an unfettered Second Amendment; honest, legitimate evaluation will ALWAYS bring a reasonable, intelligent person to the conclusion that our gun regulation is insufficient.

You have nothing but questionable interpretations of an archaic clause in a nearly 250 year old document to lean on. You sure the hell wouldn't rely on 250 year old ideas for your medical care, but the ideas of men who could not possibly have conceived the social and technological issues facing our country are bigger than God.

It is absurd, in the truest sense of the word. There is no practical reason as to why firearms should not be the most highly regulated commodity in our society; yelling "Second Amendment!" is not a practical reason, and you have nothing else.


The problem is that you assert much and support none of it with argumentation. To simply assert something about "comparative standards" and not try to demonstrate or support your assertion is meaningless and unconvincing.

I do not hold the 2nd Amendment to be biblical. The Bible I would encourage everyone to question and doubt. And you can disagree with the 2nd Amendment too if you wish, but you need to say why. You can't just say "any reasonable person will agree" with you. Bullshit, reasonable people have reasons to believe something, not just your unsupported conclusions.

My "questionable" interpretations of the 2nd Amend. seem to be support largely by the Supreme Court. So it is your interpretation that seems off.

You think vehicles are more heavily regulated? That's pretty funny. 16 year olds are bringing cars onto school grounds by the millions.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby jjoyce » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:17 pm

Any reasonable person will agree that this thread is boring.

O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby O.J. » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:30 pm

jjoyce wrote:Any reasonable person will agree that this thread is boring.


Speaking of boring, any reasonable person will agree that you're the biggest hypocrite on this forum.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests