You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #57: Uh huh [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #43
57. Uh huh
"This is blatantly hilarious. Own whatever you like, I agree. But the Second Amendment is not about ownership- it says there is no individual _right_ to bear arms of the kind, no matter what you or I propose to like."

Would you mind telling me what other Amendments to the US Constitution deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights? As far as I know, all the other ones are about rights of the individual citizen. It would seem pretty out of character of the Founding Fathers to write this one Amendment as a collective right, wouldn't you say? For example, I have never heard anyone try to argue the First Amendment is a collective right only given to state-run media, have you?

"Yes, we do. Zero. They'd find some other pressing excuse to vote for the Stupid Party. If they believe half the things you do, their schooling has hopelessly failed them to function in the modern world anyway."

Wrong. I make at least one voter, and I know of many others. Yes, I admit it: I voted for Bush in 2000. The one issue I based my decision on? Guns. I've been kicking myself ever since for this stupid act, and this year tried to make right by voting for Kerry. You have no idea how many single-issue voters out there vote Republican based on gun control, as you've made abundantly clear here.

"And up the risk of getting yourself shot sevenfold? That's in the undisputed statistics."

Would this be from the same author of the study that first stated that there was an UNDISPUTED 43X greater chance of getting shot, then revised it down to an UNDISPUTED 12X, and finally today an UNDISPUTED 7X? And the same researcher who included suicide as firearms-related homicide in his study, when gun ownership and suicide rates are very, very hard to correlate?

"The Gun Cult really began in Texas after the Civil War. The ex-Confederates were into lynchings and intimidating blacks and Indians, knew wartime guns, and were scared of federal troops being sent in to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments they were doing all they could to suppress."

And the first gun-control laws were passed to prevent newly-freed slaves from exercising their right to own firearms. Does that mean we can also link the Gun Control Cult supporters to racist ex-Confederates like you seem to be doing to gun owners?

"This is a wonderful canard. The AWB comes out of gangbangers upping the firepower because of their bad aim- streets started getting shot up with 500 and 1,000 rounds by 17-year-olds using shitty mechanisms unworthy of the label 'gun', e.g. Tec-9s. That misapplication of technology and overkill amounts of ammunition started killing 3-5 bystanders for every gang member or drug dealer."

The AWB was meant to combat gang members firing 1000 rds a night? Well then, why did it in no way, shape or form ban fully automatic weapons? Why did it ONLY ban primarily cosmetic features like bayonet lugs and flash hiders? BTW, the Tec-9 was, and still is, perfectly legal to buy and own, even throughout the 1990's AWB. The manufacturers simply removed a few small features, like a barrel shroud, renamed them, and kept on selling them. What a smashing success the AWB was. *sarcasm*

"Farmers then, and until the Civil War, had guns that were used to kill birds and cows at short ranges and were pretty bad for use on the battlefield. War-capable weaponry was special order."

If you read up on early firearms used in the 1700's and 1800's, you'll come to learn that pretty much EVERYTHING was only capable of short-range usage. War-capable weaponry was little different in general form and function, as all muzzleloaders of the day were inaccurate beyond ~50 yds.

"The Supreme Court has not accepted individual right-to-bear-arms lawsuits since the 1930s. In the USSC decisions there are, it's clear but (intentionally) not explicit that the individual ability to bear arms is a privilege, Constitutionally."

The Supreme Court case you cite, in it's statements, mentioned that US citizens don't have a constitutional right to NON-MILITARY firearms as it's prevailing reason to rule against the defendent. The case was made by the prosecution that the owner of the sawed-off shotgun had no right to it because it had no military applications, not that he didn't have an individual right to own firearms. The ironic thing is that sawed-off shotguns were used to great effect in trench warfare of WWI, and at least one of the justices fought in WWI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC