Reply #118

In the discussion thread: The second amendment is irrelevant- [View all]

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 04:29 PM

118. The problem is that their Hollywood Cowboy Culture idiocy

is a self fulfilling prophecy. They are in fact slowly creating a world where it will become necessary for all of us to go everywhere armed to the teeth because of the increasing likelihood that some armed nutjob will be going postal in public. Heinlein's stupid aphorism that "an armed society is a polite society", demonstrably falsified by visiting places such as mogadishu, is more correctly phrased "a society where armed idiots and madmen are commonplace is one where everyone must be armed". That is where we are going.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

145 replies	Author	Time	Post
The second amendment is irrelevant- [View all]	digonswine	Sep 2012	OP
So let me know when the Supreme Court comes around to your way of thinking	hack89	Sep 2012	#1
That is not an argument-no content	digonswine	Sep 2012	#2
I don't like playing fantasy games when it comes to my civil rights.	hack89	Sep 2012	#4
But I disagree-I agree with your personal rights-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#7
There is nothing more secure than an enumerated right	hack89	Sep 2012	#13
" It rings hollow. " That is also not an argument. n/t	Common Sense Party	Sep 2012	#111
The right protected by the second amendment pre-dates the constitution.	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#3
You are off about what I think-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#5
The second amendment protects the right.	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#8
Why the militia qualifier?	digonswine	Sep 2012	#11
Only if you assume that the rights are limited by the bill of rights.	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#15
I do not feel that rights should be limited by this document-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#18
Then that person would be an idiot.	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#20
I can't quite agree.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#23
So how do you codify that right to defend yourself without mentioning the 2A?	hack89	Sep 2012	#35
Yeah-I don't know really.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#37
In general I oppose any attempt to weaken anything in the Bill of Rights	hack89	Sep 2012	#40
So let me get this straight,	Missycim	Sep 2012	#61
I will say that it is very unlikely,	digonswine	Sep 2012	#69
Who would go toe to toe with a standing army?	Missycim	Sep 2012	#75
You must not have been around here during he Bush days.	Common Sense Party	Sep 2012	#113
There is no way to construe that through grammar, history or legal precedent.	PavePusher	Sep 2012	#129
Are you confused? You act as if the 2nd amendment actually grants us rights?	DonP	Sep 2012	#6
Not confused-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#9
Why is there no need for a	Missycim	Sep 2012	#63
I guess I need to know what you are referring to-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#67
I might have misunderstood you	Missycim	Sep 2012	#71
I feel this danger is minimal and our response would be ineffective.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#74
With that attitude it would	Missycim	Sep 2012	#76
I have guns, too ya know.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#81
How did we get to the point were we are at today? How did we get to the place where gunners	upaloopa	Sep 2012	#10
But here we are-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#14
What is an opinion? Is it just some thought like a wisp that floats around in the air and has no	upaloopa	Sep 2012	#27
They can insult all they want-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#31
I think I understand were you are coming from. I respect your right to your opinion and your	upaloopa	Sep 2012	#43
Since number can be spun, they are useless?	digonswine	Sep 2012	#54
So the FBI's UCR is gunner statictics?	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#55
As far as I can tell	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#34
I feel that the gun lobby is not rational. Instead of gun nut I could say irrational gun people.	upaloopa	Sep 2012	#52
You are most definitely not in the majority.	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#59
That is complete bullshit. You don't hear from the majority because they don't make	upaloopa	Sep 2012	#85
Sorry, you're 100% wrong.	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#94
"Instead of gun nut I could say irrational gun people."	PavePusher	Sep 2012	#134
I am unclear on who you are talking about	DWC	Sep 2012	#141
Ahhh...yet another example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy	ProgressiveProfessor	Sep 2012	#22
In most places, you always could	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#62
How did we get to a point violent crime is on the decline?	4th law of robotics	Sep 2012	#126
Appaerntly, someone bought into bigotry.	PavePusher	Sep 2012	#130
but but but	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#131
Wrong 2A is there to protect us against a standing army. Reread your history books.	Peepsite	Sep 2012	#12
But that is, in this day and age, nonsense.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#16
Sure. So that doesn't abolish the 2A. We also have the 3rd.	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#82
define reasonable regulation	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#89
that's easy: for you, any change to current regulations are not reasonable unless	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#101
no I don't know that	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#103
can you show me one statement of you supporting any proposed new regulation?	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#108
Most if not all of the proposed federal regualtions	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#112
so that would be a no.	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#117
not a run around at all	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#127
The writers of the constitution opposed a standing army.	Remmah2	Sep 2012	#17
Great-so what?	digonswine	Sep 2012	#21
And you can thank the 2A for your safe home, town, country.	Remmah2	Sep 2012	#25
Wow!	bongbong	Sep 2012	#29
He made a point and backed it up with a historical reference	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#48
You're embarrassing yourself	bongbong	Sep 2012	#102
Please explain this post-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#32
Sure	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#68
We are in a very different position today and have every defensive implement that	digonswine	Sep 2012	#72
Never say never	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#77
I think we have the foreign thing pretty well covered.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#80
We can send them the guns from our gun buy back programs.	Remmah2	Sep 2012	#92
From DU2	Remmah2	Sep 2012	#88
The 2nd amendment is the foundation for gun rights in this country	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#19
I would argue this way:	MicaelS	Sep 2012	#24
I appreciate the civility sensibleness-Thanks.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#45
Thank you for the civility	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#73
Most of us are pretty decent-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#78
Not really	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#83
Oh god no!	digonswine	Sep 2012	#84
Hahahaha	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#97
Any legal argument will	rrneck	Sep 2012	#26
Yikes.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#41
Yikes indeed.	rrneck	Sep 2012	#60
LOL	Marinedem	Sep 2012	#28
Great post!	digonswine	Sep 2012	#33
According to the NRA...	bongbong	Sep 2012	#30
+1000	ellisonz	Sep 2012	#38
That takes care of the 6 million NRA members - what about the 50 million non-NRA gun owners?	hack89	Sep 2012	#46
This post was hidden by jury decision.	Marinedem	Sep 2012	#50
Please post	Jenoch	Sep 2012	#99
Really?	jeepnstein	Sep 2012	#104
This message was self-deleted by its author	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#106
Access to guns and ammunition is not a "right," nor can it be.	Loudly	Sep 2012	#36
How can you tell someone-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#39
Guns as an excuse for guns leads us precisely where?	Loudly	Sep 2012	#47
What is your answer, though?	digonswine	Sep 2012	#56
Slow down the proliferation and turn off the spigot.	Loudly	Sep 2012	#58
So how is one supposed to defend themselves if they are unable	Missycim	Sep 2012	#66
So...	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#100
sharesunited loudly spigot	beevul	Sep 2012	#109
Lol. Nice.	Union Scribe	Sep 2012	#116
How do you propose to convince 1/4 of the population that they are perverts?	friendly_iconoclast	Sep 2012	#143
Shares-- err Loudly doesn't have an answer. n/t	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#98
I was not aware	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#42
Check your premise. Not a right. You've been brainwashed.	Loudly	Sep 2012	#49
Then please explain why it's not a right nt	Reasonable_Argument	Sep 2012	#70
The Second Amendment isn't a genuine right?	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#44
It was a bone thrown to those suspicious of the federal government.	Loudly	Sep 2012	#53
Read the deceleration of Independence	Missycim	Sep 2012	#65
What you did there..	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#133
I think he Shares our almost United opinion that Loudly once went by another name here...	friendly_iconoclast	Sep 2012	#136
The right to own, say, and do anything is assumed. All rights exist until they are restricted...	slackmaster	Sep 2012	#90
This message was self-deleted by its author	AnotherMcIntosh	Sep 2012	#51
I am not sure how it is a straw-man-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#64
This message was self-deleted by its author	AnotherMcIntosh	Sep 2012	#96
This is complicated-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#105
You do know you can	Missycim	Sep 2012	#57
Well no, if you read the history it was originally all about local militias	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#79
there never has been a collectivist interpetation	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#86
That opinion is where the current court is at.	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#107
it really doesn't	gejohnston	Sep 2012	#110
It does not matter if the second amendment is obsolete or not. It is LAW.	Atypical Liberal	Sep 2012	#87
guns are for women	veganlush	Sep 2012	#91
+1	Remmah2	Sep 2012	#93
Huh?	digonswine	Sep 2012	#95
You're being buried	bongbong	Sep 2012	#114
The problem is that their Hollywood Cowboy Culture idiocy	Warren Stupidity	Sep 2012	#118
Cool straw man, bro. The presence of firearms is clearly what makes Somalia so dangerous. nt	rDigital	Sep 2012	#119
LOL	bongbong	Sep 2012	#122
Ironic	bongbong	Sep 2012	#125
I don't think that helps anything.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#121
Well....	bongbong	Sep 2012	#123
Just name a few, please.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#124
Our rights are not given to us	michreject	Sep 2012	#115
That was covered in another post.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#120
And it's worth repeating	michreject	Sep 2012	#137
You obviously did not read and-	digonswine	Sep 2012	#138
"It applies only to a standing militia..." Well, no, actually; it applies to the people.	PavePusher	Sep 2012	#128
I completely agree with this---	digonswine	Sep 2012	#140
You're half right, the militia part isn't needed...	ileus	Sep 2012	#132
For the sake of argument...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Sep 2012	#135
That is pretty much what I have said numerous times here.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#139
Cool	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Sep 2012	#142
If RKBA is not covered by the 2nd, it is indisputable that it's a natural, inherent, inalienable/	jody	Sep 2012	#144
Thanks-I'll peruse them when I have a bit more time.	digonswine	Sep 2012	#145

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.