Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of this Court COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #1
and the crap from Charlton Heston holding up his rifle samsingh Aug 2012 #3
You do realize that Charlton Heston was big civil rights supporter? Equate Aug 2012 #18
yeah like a 100 years ago. he changed badly. samsingh Aug 2012 #20
You couldn't be more wrong Equate Aug 2012 #28
only if they are well regulated..... samsingh Aug 2012 #31
Sorry Equate Aug 2012 #41
Please learn English grammar. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #42
the writing is clear - 'a well regulated militia .....' samsingh Aug 2012 #54
You left out this part Equate Aug 2012 #64
we need to be regulated though. samsingh Aug 2012 #96
there are gun regulations gejohnston Aug 2012 #100
something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed. samsingh Aug 2012 #104
You were asked a question, one that I would also like to hear the answer to. oneshooter Aug 2012 #110
I'd like to hear that answer as well. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #111
what part of: something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed. samsingh Aug 2012 #116
depends gejohnston Aug 2012 #128
nothing will eliminate it. gejohnston Aug 2012 #120
why does the US have more gun violence than other industrialized countries? samsingh Aug 2012 #121
I find the "industrialized" kind of cherry picking gejohnston Aug 2012 #134
my question is basic: "why does the US have more gun related deaths than any other industrialized samsingh Aug 2012 #131
basic question with no simple answer gejohnston Aug 2012 #136
we agree on that samsingh Aug 2012 #149
Regulated meant trained, not restricted back then. nt rDigital Aug 2012 #175
to regulate as in to make regular would still have the same meaning now as it did then -- Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #179
A dependent clause explains but does not filter the independent clause. Please learn English. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #81
i know English very well. samsingh Aug 2012 #97
you're trying to tell me that clause a does not impact clause b? samsingh Aug 2012 #99
English grammar lesson: GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #113
but the dependent clause is not the independent clause samsingh Aug 2012 #124
english grammar lesson CONTINUED samsingh Aug 2012 #150
Same lesson continued: GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #152
there can be no insurance payout without the accident. That's the point i'm trying to make. samsingh Aug 2012 #153
But your sentence didn't say that. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #162
Please diagram the sentence... PavePusher Aug 2012 #88
the sentence refers to a well-regulated militia. this cannot be separated from what follows samsingh Aug 2012 #98
but it means well equipped gejohnston Aug 2012 #102
In his dissent in Heller... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #106
There should have been a period and two distinct sentences samsingh Aug 2012 #107
It's not optional. discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #109
sounds revisionist to me. samsingh Aug 2012 #115
Ever use you right... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #117
why did you introduce the free speech on the internet into the discussion? samsingh Aug 2012 #123
To provide an example of a right... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #126
in the free speech example samsingh Aug 2012 #127
yes there are sensible boundaries discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #132
okay samsingh Aug 2012 #133
thanks for the well considered reply discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #135
Has there been a single Jenoch Aug 2012 #140
no, but it would be a red flag and provide an opportunity for prevention samsingh Aug 2012 #146
To prevent what, Jenoch Aug 2012 #182
you know reduce events like massacres, innocent people getting killed samsingh Aug 2012 #183
my replies discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #142
thanks for your reasonable answers. samsingh Aug 2012 #147
I have an issue... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #159
would you have... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #178
Some answers: GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #151
Actually, you can spread hate speech, but you can't incite to violence. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #139
and rightly so. but there is a limit. samsingh Aug 2012 #154
Where is that limit? GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #163
There is no ambiguity in the wording, pipoman Aug 2012 #176
Very good question. I've addressed this before. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #177
his stance of civil rights never changed gejohnston Aug 2012 #29
How old are you? Maybe 17? n/t PavePusher Aug 2012 #87
wow - you guys get really insulting when someone questions your logic samsingh Aug 2012 #125
It speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of the professor or of the author of the OP's source. n/t TPaine7 Aug 2012 #22
What pray tell is dishonest about what the professor says? COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #155
First, let's be clear. I did not say that the professor was intellectually dishonest: TPaine7 Aug 2012 #160
Good article bongbong Aug 2012 #2
it clearly does samsingh Aug 2012 #129
Bullshit. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #4
i don't think so. you may not want to believe it, but this is true. samsingh Aug 2012 #6
No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #12
lies like those perpetuated by the NRA? samsingh Aug 2012 #16
Impressive rebuttal, but the NRA is beside the point of the post you answered. n/t TPaine7 Aug 2012 #25
the post refers to changes in the 1970s which were definitely supported by the NRA samsingh Aug 2012 #30
Actually, post 12, the one you replied to, says nothing whatsoever about the 1970's TPaine7 Aug 2012 #55
in the OP samsingh Aug 2012 #130
Read the post I linked to and make a cogent response and we can talk. n/t TPaine7 Aug 2012 #14
why don't you do that with my post? samsingh Aug 2012 #19
There's very little substance, but OK. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #50
how is it that everything that does not support your position is a lie. Burger lied? samsingh Aug 2012 #53
Standard for gun-relgionists bongbong Aug 2012 #62
No, I wasn't saying that Burger lied. He may have simply been misinformed. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #70
For a true perspective from an intellectual committed to freedom... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #75
i know history as well. It seems to me that you're using observations as facts when they samsingh Aug 2012 #101
how much history do you know? gejohnston Aug 2012 #103
University level American History, European History, Russian History. samsingh Aug 2012 #105
Russian history, gejohnston Aug 2012 #137
I know why! bongbong Aug 2012 #158
you obviously missed the point gejohnston Aug 2012 #166
I got the point bongbong Aug 2012 #167
First, I don't doubt that you know history. You may very well know more history than I do. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #165
Thje 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.... Adrahil Aug 2012 #180
LOL. "The professor is misrepresenting". Boy if I had a nickel... nt DanTex Aug 2012 #36
Lying again? TPaine7 Aug 2012 #79
Georgia banned handguns and concealed carry gejohnston Aug 2012 #5
so overturning it again would be fine then. samsingh Aug 2012 #7
no, because it was based on the second amendment gejohnston Aug 2012 #11
in that case samsingh Aug 2012 #13
because the collective right theory did not exist gejohnston Aug 2012 #23
My problem with the state of things is that the NRA will not....... Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #8
i'd be fine with that - but the NRA will not be. samsingh Aug 2012 #9
good point, but gejohnston Aug 2012 #17
you are so wrong. first off, who's asking for prohibition? i'm not. samsingh Aug 2012 #27
And there is the rub. The NRA believes more guns are the answer. Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #33
Most of the money comes from members. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #37
NRA backers Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #44
And they receive even more millions from members. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #48
once a year gejohnston Aug 2012 #43
OK, what are you asking for then? Please be specific. NT Trunk Monkey Aug 2012 #92
Exactly my point. You are afraid to discuss it because..... Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #32
Nobody is stopping anything from being debated. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #40
you didn't read it closely did you? gejohnston Aug 2012 #67
If you want pro-2nd Missycim Aug 2012 #144
How about national concealed carry permit reciprocity Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #156
no rocket launcher please Missycim Aug 2012 #157
Rocket launchers are legal, it is the rockets that are controlled. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #164
That's because what you are asking for is impossible. Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #47
its a joke to think that armed civilians can stop any nation powerful enough to defeat the US samsingh Aug 2012 #51
Really? Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #118
very circular logic - you stated the purpose was to protect against foreign aggressors. samsingh Aug 2012 #122
Foreign and domestic. Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #145
Maybe a reasonable solution is to set up a televised national commission, of sorts, to Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #72
you make sense but I must correct one thing gejohnston Aug 2012 #77
For want of calling them fashionable pretend military style hunting/target rifles. n/t Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #78
If by discussion you mean legislation that bans some firearms and/or their accessories, then aikoaiko Aug 2012 #82
If I understand you right. You want preconditions before... Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #89
I would be open to a televised discussion Equate Aug 2012 #93
I think, knowing that they were being televised, they would.... Bonhomme Richard Aug 2012 #108
What I would like is for discussion to happen before Shumer tacked on a magazine ban to a bill. aikoaiko Aug 2012 #95
I wouldn't discuss it at all Missycim Aug 2012 #143
And yet Constitutional scholors like Lawrence Tribe disagrees with Equate Aug 2012 #10
Like those who supported the elimination of other civil liberties aikoaiko Aug 2012 #15
i don't think so. samsingh Aug 2012 #21
The proof is in the pudding Equate Aug 2012 #34
"losing side of history" DanTex Aug 2012 #45
I really don't care what other nations think of our 2A Equate Aug 2012 #46
Yes, that was my point. DanTex Aug 2012 #49
Nice job putting words in my mouth. Equate Aug 2012 #61
Religion bongbong Aug 2012 #65
I was wondering if... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #66
OK! bongbong Aug 2012 #168
I thought you would... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #170
Learn to read bongbong Aug 2012 #172
right discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #173
Yes bongbong Aug 2012 #174
Whatever you say Equate Aug 2012 #69
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #90
There are fledgling gun-right organizations and movements in other countries. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #52
Yeah, but they don't make any progress, and one major reason for that is the US. DanTex Aug 2012 #63
They are new, and growing. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #83
That's only part of the picture. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #24
wanting gun laws and sane gun control does not make one anti-gun samsingh Aug 2012 #26
"Sane gun control" is code for gun prohibition. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #35
that's such an emotional over-reaction. samsingh Aug 2012 #56
Actually, the city supported by the Brady Campaign and numerous anti-gun groups and luminaries TPaine7 Aug 2012 #74
Experience, not emotion. I gave you the example of HR 1022. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #84
As opposed to Pro-Choice? rDigital Aug 2012 #38
as long as you don't infringe on my personal safety by supporting a culture that allows maniacs to samsingh Aug 2012 #58
Your straw-man's on fire discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #60
We already have a plethoria of gun laws Equate Aug 2012 #39
i guess we need more because they're not working samsingh Aug 2012 #59
they're not working because they're not enforced Equate Aug 2012 #68
BTW.... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #71
I knew Justice Stevens did Equate Aug 2012 #73
You're very welcome discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #76
Stevens agrees 2nd is individual right? Not exactly. russ1943 Aug 2012 #161
The actual language used by Stevens in his dissent can be found here: AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #171
Gun violence has been decreasing for the past 18 years. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #85
The 2A grants nothing. Article is fundamentally flawed. discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #57
Because Strict Gun Laws Work SO Well in Chicago and NYC... liberallibral Aug 2012 #80
Wow! bongbong Aug 2012 #91
it actually makes me want to cry - yes, we starting bailing water when the boat was samsingh Aug 2012 #119
So what is the author Fareed Zakaria's recommendation? Call people un-American and insult them? AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #86
why don't you ask him? samsingh Aug 2012 #112
Earlier, when you were asked about your age, you said (#125) "actualy 17 is a compliment." AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #138
Never give up basic human rights... ileus Aug 2012 #94
yes trivialize death samsingh Aug 2012 #114
There is no Constitutional protection xxenderwigginxx Aug 2012 #141
there are many debates going about what the constitution protects and does not protect. samsingh Aug 2012 #148
hey... why not make cars illegal? Adrahil Aug 2012 #181
It now turns out that the author is accused of related plagerism and has "apologized profusely for AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #169
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The Case for Gun Control ...»Reply #173