Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I try to use the same logic when talking about the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Seems black folks should be doing more to turn them into a body that reflects reasonable views. They claim to speak for the black community.

Seems pretty silly doesn't it? See how that works?

Trying to blame an organization that may claim to represent the views of all gun owners is idiocy. I don't think they even make that claim. Maybe they do. The fault is not with the gun owner or the NRA. The fault is with folks like you who can't tell the difference between an organization that represents a small percentage of gun owners, and then asking all gun owners to try and change the views of that organization.

The fault is very much with the NRA - it's a militant organisation.

It's a fact that some people are a lot more concerned with the second amendment than they are with the first. In fact I have no doubt that some people here would actually use the second amendment to curtail the first.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think abortion rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution. Gun rights are very clear.

And yet, there is debate and interpretation around who exactly that right applies to. The current interpretation by the SCOTUS is that it applies to individuals. That interpretation can certainly become subject to change within a changing societal context. There is also debate and interpretation as to what "arms" are actually covered by the 2nd amendment.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I try to use the same logic when talking about the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Seems black folks should be doing more to turn them into a body that reflects reasonable views. They claim to speak for the black community.

Seems pretty silly doesn't it? See how that works?

Trying to blame an organization that may claim to represent the views of all gun owners is idiocy. I don't think they even make that claim. Maybe they do. The fault is not with the gun owner or the NRA. The fault is with folks like you who can't tell the difference between an organization that represents a small percentage of gun owners, and then asking all gun owners to try and change the views of that organization.

We're trying, but whenever someone knocks someone out, it represents all of black america.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

And yet, there is debate and interpretation around who exactly that right applies to. The current interpretation by the SCOTUS is that it applies to individuals. That interpretation can certainly become subject to change within a changing societal context. There is also debate and interpretation as to what "arms" are actually covered by the 2nd amendment.

Fair enough,as arms are limited in scope. However still, when you start denying individuals the right to own a firearm you are clearly stepping over the bounds.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Liar! And you wonder why I don't trust you with a deadly weapon?

We cannot trust you with even a keyboard.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thank you..I really don't understand the constant "can't comprehend and personal attacks".. A clear violation of the TOS BTW

I think it's a defense mechanism for some insecurity

He makes a statement like there is no need for the second amendment then can't understand when you ask him, is he in favor of changing it.

really odd behavior.

I am starting to think he may not really be able to follow, and it's just a defense mechanism. Regardless this place is much more enjoyable with out such animosity and pettiness.

If anything this place could do without its gutless weasels making petty and dishonest comments.

Respond to what's said, not the ignorant interpretations of others.

[TBoneTX 46,319]

One post removed for TOS violation, along with two reacting to it. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

TBoneTX

VJ Moderation

[Teddy B 17,252]

If anything this place could do without its gutless weasels making petty and dishonest comments.

Respond to what's said, not the ignorant interpretations of others.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think you're reading the same thread. People here are so militant and polarised that there will never be a reasonable discussion on this topic.

[Karee 4,191]

If anything this place could do without its gutless weasels making petty and dishonest comments.

Respond to what's said, not the ignorant interpretations of others.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If anything this place could do without its gutless weasels making petty and dishonest comments.

Respond to what's said, not the ignorant interpretations of others.

Case in point. An example of deliberately selective interpretation.

[Karee 4,191]

And yet, there is debate and interpretation around who exactly that right applies to. The current interpretation by the SCOTUS is that it applies to individuals. That interpretation can certainly become subject to change within a changing societal context. There is also debate and interpretation as to what "arms" are actually covered by the 2nd amendment.

And as our friend from Vermont often points out, almost all of the recent decisions by the court are in favor of the gun nuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fair enough,as arms are limited in scope. However still, when you start denying individuals the right to own a firearm you are clearly stepping over the bounds.

That's the current interpretation. Which is certainly subject to change.

And as our friend from Vermont often points out, almost all of the recent decisions by the court are in favor of the gun nuts.

Yes, at current, that is the case. That does not mean that it will always be the case. The court has long favored racial segregation. And then it changed and declared racial segregation unconstitutional.

[Ryan H 3,834]

***One post containing a personal attack removed along with posts quoting. Any more posts of that nature or will result in Administrative Action.***

Edited February 21, 2014 by Ryan H

[Karee 4,191]

Yes, at current, that is the case. That does not mean that it will always be the case. The court has long favored racial segregation. And then it changed and declared racial segregation unconstitutional.

I don't think there was anything in the constitution outlining racial segregation. There's something there about the right to bear arms. That said, I understand the gist of what you meant, that attitudes change over time. I think trying to win the battle in the courts will always be a losing effort since the 2nd amendment is there. Seems the only way would be to get another amendment to the constitution, which would never pass in today's climate. Maybe down the road though. That would settle it once and for all.

They did get an amendment through to outlaw alcohol. Which today would be impossible. So it seems what you say is possible. What to do with the 300+ million guns in circulation is another matter as well. You can only drink a beer once, but you can kill multiple people with the same gun for hundreds of years.