Would you support more restrictions on guns in your state?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In one post you state my argument makes no sense. In another you claim you thought I had a case but were mistaken. Which is it?

The argument you presented which I responded to makes no sense. I stated the reasons why I feel that way.

It then appeared that you were looking to mount a case taking the point I made into consideration. So I thought that you had a case you were about to present. But then you ended up resorting to attacks. So it appeared to me that I was mistaken when I thought you were looking to present a case.

[Sousuke 1,214]

The argument you presented which I responded to makes no sense. I stated the reasons why I feel that way.

It then appeared that you were looking to mount a case taking the point I made into consideration. So I thought that you had a case you were about to present. But then you ended up resorting to attacks. So it appeared to me that I was mistaken when I thought you were looking to present a case.

Ok. Can we hit a reset button and then I will make the case?

[Karee 4,190]

The argument you presented which I responded to makes no sense. I stated the reasons why I feel that way.

It then appeared that you were looking to mount a case taking the point I made into consideration. So I thought that you had a case you were about to present. But then you ended up resorting to attacks. So it appeared to me that I was mistaken when I thought you were looking to present a case.

Jesus Christ! Are you practicing to be a lawyer?

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

ahem......

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

ahem......

Who calls the cops? "Don't shoot - I can't breathe!"

[Sousuke 1,214]

I reject the notion that the 1st amendment has a different standard compared to the 2nd based upon the number of deaths. There are no thresholds upon which to judge the bill of rights on death rates. Our country limited rights over the deaths of 2900 in the early 2000s (which was not right, no matter how many lives were lost).

I also think people underestimate the cost of the 1st amendment especially now since lobbying and corporate personhood are within the umbrella of the first amendment. Now every time a corporation pays off congress to forgo an environmental safety regulation, those deaths associated with the environmental damage are now tallied under the 1st. As such, we could be looking at death rates far above firearm accidents or homicide related to corporate lobbying.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Sousuke

[Karee 4,190]

If there was a way to vaporize all the non military owned firearms in the U.S., the U.S. would be a better country.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I reject the notion that the 1st amendment has a different standard compared to the 2nd based upon the number of deaths. There are no thresholds upon which to judge the bill of rights on death rates. Our country limited rights over the deaths of 2900 in the early 2000s (which was not right, no matter how many lives were lost).

I also think people underestimate the cost of the 1st amendment especially now since lobbying and corporate personhood are within the umbrella of the first amendment. Now every time a corporation pays off congress to forgo an environmental safety regulation, those deaths associated with the environmental damage are now tallied under the 1st. As such, we could be looking at death rates far above firearm accidents or homicide related to corporate lobbying.

Yeah, well, I reject the interpretations of the amendments and to whom they apply. Let's start with the simple fact that corporations are not actually persons regardless of what the corporate appointed SCOTUS says to the contrary. Persons are persons. Corporations are legal constructs. It's really that elementary. The first amendment was not written so that corporations may usurp the government. Just as the second wasn't written to support every moron in this country to run around with a freaking gun.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Yeah, well, I reject the interpretations of the amendments and to whom they apply. Let's start with the simple fact that corporations are not actually persons regardless of what the corporate appointed SCOTUS says to the contrary. Persons are persons. Corporations are legal constructs. It's really that elementary. The first amendment was not written so that corporations may usurp the government. Just as the second wasn't written to support every moron in this country to run around with a freaking gun.

While I don't entirely disagree, our interpretations of the amendments, themselves, matter very little. Its the government's interpretation that are reality and frame the discussion.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Sousuke