U.S.is exporting crime and terror to Canada

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think the 2nd amendment is pretty clear with the recent supreme court rulings and the general understanding of how it ties in with English law circa 1680's on (its all about the Catholics!).

Edited August 8, 2011 by Sousuke

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I think the 2nd amendment is pretty clear with the recent supreme court rulings and the general understanding of how it ties in with English law circa 1680's on (its all about the Catholics!).

We'll just get Christopher Marlowe on the payroll, that should solve the problem with the Catholics.

[slim 1,530]

I think the 2nd amendment is pretty clear with the recent supreme court rulings and the general understanding of how it ties in with English law circa 1680's on (its all about the Catholics!).

Apparently I AM qualified to "interpret" the constitution!

Apparently I also do it in a similar way to supreme court justices. Say it isn't so!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Apparently I AM qualified to "interpret" the constitution!

Apparently I also do it in a similar way to supreme court justices. Say it isn't so!

The hamster keeps running, but the wheel goes nowhere....

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Apparently I AM qualified to "interpret" the constitution!

Apparently I also do it in a similar way to supreme court justices. Say it isn't so!

If you say so.

[slim 1,530]

If you say so.

I didn't say so. Someone else did. Oh, and so did the evidence.

You guys can continue to ignore that in favor of your own opinions. I really could care less. Amuse yourselves!

[The_Dude 1,142]

I didn't say so. Someone else did. Oh, and so did the evidence.

You guys can continue to ignore that in favor of your own opinions. I really could care less. Amuse yourselves!

Saying that you could care less indicates that you do indeed care. I'm not sure if that was your intended meaning, or yet another elegant display of your grasp of the english language.

[Zero Sum 305]

I didn't say so. Someone else did. Oh, and so did the evidence.

You guys can continue to ignore that in favor of your own opinions. I really could care less. Amuse yourselves!

Is that what you would tell the Supreme Court too? You care less what their (apparently) incorrect assumptions about the legal and judicial framework of what the Constitution establishes as pretty much our entire system of governance and its tributary precepts?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Is that what you would tell the Supreme Court too? You care less what their (apparently) incorrect assumptions about the legal and judicial framework of what the Constitution establishes as pretty much our entire system of governance and its tributary precepts?

His view matches the supreme court if he believes firearm ownership to be separate of the militia statement within the 2nd amendment.

[Zero Sum 305]

His view matches the supreme court if he believes firearm ownership to be separate of the militia statement within the 2nd amendment.

The Founding Fathers (ironically, talking about literal reading of the Constitution...) should have plainly written it... every citizen bears the right to possess arms as needed for the defense of the nation against itself when tyranny, if it arises, arrives.

Ironically they do not write this in... but I will defer to the Supreme Court in their interpretation, thankfully so, as this makes firearm ownership by individuals a right in the US. Stipulating that these individuals be of sound mind wouldn't necessarily contradict this right, as not having a sound mind is a peril to the common good and public safety when a firearm is involved.

We commonly see the 'the gun isn't bad'- its the people that are bad argument to defend gun ownership. Well... they will have to make up their mind. If they condemn people for carrying out acts of violence using guns, they have to stand prepared to be a little more proactive about following the wording of the Constitution in ensuring the welfare of the people of the United States by limiting the firearms violent people can access. That is the only point of contention here. I wonder why they defend a lunatic's right to access a firearm, when the results many a times of these instances are painfully obvious.

It may boil down to innate paranoia, as displayed by common threads of distrust of the very government entrusted over the generations to defend those Constitutional freedoms enshrined in the document they want to take literally, yet without any realistic context.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The Founding Fathers (ironically, talking about literal reading of the Constitution...) should have plainly written it... every citizen bears the right to possess arms as needed for the defense of the nation against itself when tyranny, if it arises, arrives.

Ironically they do not write this in... but I will defer to the Supreme Court in their interpretation, thankfully so, as this makes firearm ownership by individuals a right in the US. Stipulating that these individuals be of sound mind wouldn't necessarily contradict this right, as not having a sound mind is a peril to the common good and public safety when a firearm is involved.

We commonly see the 'the gun isn't bad'- its the people that are bad argument to defend gun ownership. Well... they will have to make up their mind. If they condemn people for carrying out acts of violence using guns, they have to stand prepared to be a little more proactive about following the wording of the Constitution in ensuring the welfare of the people of the United States by limiting the firearms violent people can access. That is the only point of contention here. I wonder why they defend a lunatic's right to access a firearm, when the results many a times of these instances are painfully obvious.

It may boil down to innate paranoia, as displayed by common threads of distrust of the very government entrusted over the generations to defend those Constitutional freedoms enshrined in the document they want to take literally, yet without any realistic context.

Oh right, yeah if that is the argument then I agree. It doesn't give the mentally ill or criminals the right to have them.

[slim 1,530]

I'm not sure if that was your intended meaning, or yet another elegant display of your grasp of the english language.

Who has the comprehension problems now?

Is that what you would tell the Supreme Court too? You care less what their (apparently) incorrect assumptions about the legal and judicial framework of what the Constitution establishes as pretty much our entire system of governance and its tributary precepts?

Absolutely. I disagree with them on some things. I agree with them on others.

What I find extremely intriguing about our supreme court is how it almost always comes down to a one or two vote majority. Here are the leading "experts" on our laws and system yet they can't agree and almost always their interpretations of our convoluted law system are at direct odds with one another.

How can the experts disagree?

What you'll see most though is they don't often disagree on the constitution. In most gun cases they're not actually debating the 2nd amendment, they're debating the law of somewhere or some silly thing. They may use the constitution as "proof" of someone's rights, but they're not actually defining what the costitution means. Not on purpose, anyway. It's interesting that their decisions do become the byproduct of that debate and the foundation for future decisions.

His view matches the supreme court if he believes firearm ownership to be separate of the militia statement within the 2nd amendment.

I actually find it to be one in the same. However, my definition of the militia is able-bodied males of military age - just like it was when our constitution was written.

The fact that scotus' ruling still protects that right is fine with me. I think they missed it a little bit, but their ruling is close enough for modern applications and good enough to keep the lefties quiet for a while.

The Founding Fathers (ironically, talking about literal reading of the Constitution...) should have plainly written it... every citizen bears the right to possess arms as needed for the defense of the nation against itself when tyranny, if it arises, arrives.

I can only imagine what that "plainly written" phrase there would've been interpreted to mean in the modern day.

"There's no need right now.... so, no guns."

"You're not one of the citizens that would defend the nation... so, no guns."

"Our government is benevolent, we're not tyrants!....so, no guns."

"Citizens are not allowed to fight other citizens.... so, no guns."

"The need will never arrive in modern days.... so, no guns."

Need any more "plainly written" arguments against your "plainly written" 2nd amendment?

People have a hard enough time understanding what "shall not be infringed" means. How on earth could they determine the Swiss cheese wording you have to be "good enough?"

[Zero Sum 305]

Indeed, slim. The 2nd Amendment isn't what is being debated. Its allowing insane, violent individuals the same access to weapons obviously used for purposes far beyond deterring crime.

The Constitutional argument against protecting the citizenship from tyranny, foreign or domestic, is valid, supported, and defensible. So be it a right.

No need to get defensive about plainly-written language defining that ownership is specifically tied to defense from this potential tyranny, or even making it clear that self-defense and using firearms for hunting food, are not too hard to see without wanting to actually have gray, vague language that sets up exactly this debate about taking the existing language to areas where we have lobbying that includes ownership rights for people of questionable mental state.

Unsound mental state is not too hard to fathom.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Indeed, slim. The 2nd Amendment isn't what is being debated. Its allowing insane, violent individuals the same access to weapons obviously used for purposes far beyond deterring crime.

Did the US stop doing background checks for gun buyers recently?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Who has the comprehension problems now?

Still you Slim. Fact remains that you misused a horrible phrase, yet still dont' realize that it changes your purported position on the subject.