Russian Article: Americans never give up your guns

[cabernetluver]

why not?

I see no problem with someone who is a law abiding citizen having any type of firearm they want.

Really? So a law abiding citizen should have there very own thermonuclear bomb? Surface to air missile? White phosphorus grenade? Really?

Or do you see limits? And what we are really discussing is where the limit is, not should there be limits.

[raiderfaninTX]

Really? So a law abiding citizen should have there very own thermonuclear bomb? Surface to air missile? White phosphorus grenade? Really?

Or do you see limits? And what we are really discussing is where the limit is, not should there be limits.

1. A nuclear bomb is not a gun

2. I would answer this if you did not take this argument to an idiots level (I do mean the literal definition of an idiot and not an insult) by using the most extreme case. You are probably the type of person who uses Hitler in all your arguments as an example.

[raiderfaninTX]

While I applaud you for getting rid of your guns with a small child in the house, I have to say that I find your opinions above more than a little bizarre from someone who claims to be a Dem.

I understand that the love of GUNS, and the love of the associated great US GUN culture, cuts across all party lines, yet here you are trotting out standard right wing, NRA horseshit.

On the one hand, you object to executive orders, and suggest that whatever comes out of Biden's proposals will be meaningless (which suggests that you think he should be bringing 'more' to the table,) and on the other hand you think anyone should be allowed to have any kind of weapon they want?? Does. Not. Compute.

So, I don't understand southern racists, but that doesn't enable me to conclude that they're wrong? I don't understand the lifestyle of religious fundamentalist lunatics like the Westboros, but that doesn't make them wrong?

The fact that most criminals use 'illegal' weapons is absolutely zero kind of argument to do nothing about guns, it's a blatant gun nut, NRA kind of diversion, and the kind of thing that nobody who calls himself a Dem should be buying into. (imo)

You finally gave the game away with your last line - basically, you just really resent the possibility that any kind of new regulations or legislation might in some small way curtail your right to have any gun that you want. Part of the reason the country is so ****ed up about guns is that there are too many people who see it like you do. That state of mind, that outlook, will simply have to change if the country is ever going to move away from the currently prevailing national gun madness.

I do vote democrat but please understand I do not classify people by their political party like you seem to do.

I take a reasonable approach that all things should be on the table. I can tell by the anger in your post that you assume
a. All gun owners support the NRA and are some type of republican hick.
b. you then use southern racist to show again that in your mind all southern people are racist or only racist people exist in the south. If you could tell me the difference between a southern/western/eastern/northern/Midwest racist I would love to know.

Same thinking that all Muslims are terrorist or all terrorist are Muslims. Again another person uses an extreme example like westboro baptist church, Why does every single person here use an extreme example in an argument, it is the worst type of debate to be honest?

I will tell you why though, because even with proper punctuation or using your vocabulary skills it all comes down to the fact that most people can not think about a complex issue like this.

It has to be this way or you are this, which is horrible way to think.

The fact of the matter is the answer is complex and I do expect our leaders to be able to have that discussion and not just have a charade of a discussion for a week, and come with an obvious proposal that was made up weeks ago.

Also do not let your party blind you, remember you are an individual and that is what this comes down to.

I believe people now days would be wise to go and study plato's cave. The problem is most people wouldn't get it.

Lastly in your post you act like it's a bad thing that I say "my" or "I", yes they are my rights. When you are read your Miranda rights it says "you" not "we". The first ten amendments have many individual rights. So if I like having the choice of exercising "MY" individual rights than that is my "Right". It is the same reason the supreme court upheld westboro's right to protest at soldiers funerals. Great example of a right being ugly but one that must be maintained for all individuals, it is just our choice to use it or not.

[Mudvayne91]

"Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can’t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year — because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of Imaginary Hitler."

-Jon Stewart

Great post.

[cabernetluver]

1. A nuclear bomb is not a gun

2. I would answer this if you did not take this argument to an idiots level (I do mean the literal definition of an idiot and not an insult) by using the most extreme case. You are probably the type of person who uses Hitler in all your arguments as an example.

First, to answer your second statement, I never use Hitler. There was only one Hitler, and that was Hitler. You made the unqualified statement. I just took it to its logical conclusion. So, if you wish to use the term idiot, how about we look at the definition:

usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation

2: a foolish or stupid person

Merriam-Webster

So it was intended to be insulting. You made the statement. Your argument fails due to its own lack of coherence. You do not feel you should be able to own anything, you just don't want to admit it. A nuclear bomb by anyone's definition is covered under the definition of arms, and if you wish limit it to something that can be carried, there are battle field tactical nuclear arms that would fall into your definition.

Once again, your argument fails, even by your own judgement.

[Angry Norwegian]

I notice the major gun activist not responding cause thy dont know their history which is typical since they don't study history. I bet they will read the bolded parts but they wont read the whole article.

Yeah, we didn't graduate 3rd in our class at Harvard Law. Or was it Yale?

9/11 illuminati lizard people new world order globalist elite agenda.

[dbroncos78087]

1. A nuclear bomb is not a gun

2. I would answer this if you did not take this argument to an idiots level (I do mean the literal definition of an idiot and not an insult) by using the most extreme case. You are probably the type of person who uses Hitler in all your arguments as an example.

The Constitution actually makes no reference to guns just "arms"

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]

Neither one of those say anything about guns. So it can be interpreted without having to add words or go away from the original language to say one has the right to a nuclear armament.

I will also say that we often ignore the whole "well regulated" part of that too.

[natepro]

The Constitution actually makes no reference to guns just "arms"



Neither one of those say anything about guns. So it can be interpreted without having to add words or go away from the original language to say one has the right to a nuclear armament.

I will also say that we often ignore the whole "well regulated" part of that too.

And the fact that "militia" and "people" are not the same two groups.

[flips333]

And the fact that "militia" and "people" are not the same two groups.

It's best to ignore the parts of the constitution one doesn't agree with.

[raiderfaninTX]

And the fact that "militia" and "people" are not the same two groups.

You can do a simple google search and see that militia is intended to mean the every day citizen of this country.

Add all of the warnings from our founding fathers about disarming citizens it really should be obvious.

[flips333]

You can do a simple google search and see that militia is intended to mean the every day citizen of this country.

Add all of the warnings from our founding fathers about disarming citizens it really should be obvious.

You can do a simple google search and find out that something that was written 220 years ago means exactly what you want it to mean.

[raiderfaninTX]

You can do a simple google search and find out that something that was written 220 years ago means exactly what you want it to mean.

Hmm I think the free speech part only applies to me and not you, as well that freedom to assemble is actually to only assemble doors.

So we should throw out the first ten amendments

[flips333]

Hmm I think the free speech part only applies to me and not you, as well that freedom to assemble is actually to only assemble doors.

So we should throw out the first ten amendments

I don't understand your point. My point is simply you said this clause in the constitution means A. And you can find folks who agree with that. Meanwhile you can also find people that believe the same clause means B. It is the job of the Supreme Court to answer these questions and interpret the constitution. And that interpretation is going to change over time, because the document was written before genetics, mac-10s and infrared cameras. So when the Court finds in one's favor one goes "they got it right." If the court find in the others favor one exclaims "Damn activist judges"

[raiderfaninTX]

I don't understand your point. My point is simply you said this clause in the constitution means A. And you can find folks who agree with that. Meanwhile you can also find people that believe the same clause means B. It is the job of the Supreme Court to answer these questions and interpret the constitution. And that interpretation is going to change over time, because the document was written before genetics, mac-10s and infrared cameras. So when the Court finds in one's favor one goes "they got it right." If the court find in the others favor one exclaims "Damn activist judges"

I have to admit I did bait you into posting the supreme court argument, because so many ignorant people go there.

If you cannot admit you were wrong after I post this then there is no reason for anyone to ever to respond to your post.

I said do a google search and I meant it.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government

Please do your research before posting, the definition did not change 218 years after it was written but hey it's been 2 years since the last time it was redefined by the supreme court. They may change their minds, lol

What else needs to be provided for you or natepro to admit you're wrong along with everyone else who uses that lame *** well regulated militia argument. Like I posted earlier this issue is complex and the average person cannot begin to think on a level on how to solve it.

It is funny though that people post so much misinformation and using a device that can provide them with answers if they were not so lazy to do some research.

So you tell me did the court "GET IT RIGHT" or were they "DAMN, ACTIVIST JUDGES"?

[natepro]

Edit: I mean.. honestly. How did you not just post exactly what he was talking about? And call him ignorant, which I got an infraction for once upon a time, in the process. Hilarious.