Ahhh yes. As I stated earlier, any member of a militia is obviously a dangerous extremist wacko, and now we can add probable tea party member and nazi to the list! Well said daneel.
My sympathies.
Ear buds are your buddies!
Did I generalize?
1 Like
Do tell, please, about your own experience with members of a militia.
Iâm intrigued: what do they really organize for, or against? How often do they train, and how do they do it? Do they allow the women folk to join?
1 Like
You can disagree with their interpretation, sure, but it makes no difference, because theyâre the supreme court and youâre not.
Sigh.
Just because I have no power on my own to change laws doesnât mean that I canât have, and express, an opinion about the validity of laws. Laws change, and changing and prevailing public opinions, mores and values often have an effect on that.
4 Likes
âMakes no differenceâ in the sense youâre indicating. That doesnât mean it doesnât make a difference period.
I suppose the arguments against Dredd vs. Scott made âno differenceâ given the fact that the decision was ultimately overturned?
Gotta say, these âshut up, thatâs why!â style arguments really make me cranky.
3 Likes
I guess this repetitious citing of a Supreme Court decision â in lieu of any of its actual details and content â basically amounts to, âHey, the Supreme Court already decided we can have our guns, so shut up already!â
Thatâs such a . . . childish position, that itâs not even worth arguing with, really.
1 Like
I havenât said anything snide or angry once in this discussion, but I think your post is a little bit rotten.
Youâre making it sound like I didnât comprehend what you said the first time, and Iâm only against federal regulation because Iâm too backwards to see the other side of the matter.
Believe me, Iâve spent as much or more time than you thinking about federal gun control and what it would mean. I know that gun control in a heavily restricted state would be easier to control if the less-restricted states were more like it, but this country is the third most populous and fourth largest (by land mass), so there are sure to be many groups of people that think many different things. I think the only difference between you and I is that you think of the United States, while I still think of these United States.
No, Iâm making it sound like you didnât actually make an argument for your position. Which you didnât.
Iâm perfectly capable of simultaneously recognizing that US states have some limited sovereignty while still acknowledging that the nation state of which I am a legal citizen is the United States of America.
Or do you have an Ohio passport?
What Iâm arguing is â as a purely practical matter â whether it makes more sense for gun laws to be consistent or inconsistent from state to state.
It doesnât have to be federal legislation that makes it so. State legislatures can presumably voluntarily align their policies with each other for the sake of making them easier to enforce, easier to comply with, and more effective. Hey, they already do this for almost all laws applying to operating a motor vehicle.
1 Like
Uh⌠you can make a rather effective shotgun with two pieces of steel pipe and a nail. Itâs not exactly a Browning, but it works surprisingly well, to the point where the Japanese had a constant fight against partisans armed with them in some of the places they occupied in WW2.
Donât need 3D printers and high-tech schematics.
Laws vary by location, allowing the local community (be it state, county, town, etc.) to set standards which better fit their own outlook and beliefs. Is this not a benefit? Why do you dislike diversity?
1 Like
No, sir. No passport for moving between states. I live in one state and work in another, so Iâm glad about that.
Anyways, nothing personal, but if you donât think that I made a point, then I suppose that Iâm wasting my time. I know that Iâm a minority here, but I donât think youâre actually trying to see things from my point of view; youâre just looking through my argument for things you can dismiss as ignorant. Iâll admit that Iâve done the same thing, but Iâve been enough of these discussions with enough different people that I really can see where youâre coming from. I wish you could see where Iâm coming from.
Also, not related, but:
âwhat you see is not what you getâ?
What do you hope to accomplish by arguing about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment when the ultimate authority on itâs interpretation has already made a decision?
You still have options:
- Get a new supreme court and have them revisit the issue (itâs possible, give it 30 years).
- Get the 2nd amendment repealed (good luck)
- Start talking about things that can still be done within the confines of the decision that private citizens are allowed to own guns.
Discussing the meaning of the 2nd amendment is just beating a dead horse. Even if youâre right, itâs not going to go anywhere. Youâre going to say âI disagree with the supreme court!â And then your opponent is going to say, âI agree with them!â and thatâs as far as it will ever get.
The 2nd amendment is actually almost irrelevant to the idea of gun control in practice, anyway. All the second amendment does is keep local/state/federal governments from banning private ownership of guns outright, and it seems clear that isnât a thing that would happen anyway, so given that itâs pretty much impossible that guns are getting banned entirely in the foreseeable future, why even bother arguing the definition of the second amendment?
2 Likes
Errr, and you comment on me being a âtough guyâ? I see youâre the top poster in this thread by a large amount, I also see many of your posts include character attacks, strawman arguments, and general unpleasantness. Lay off, would you please? Other people have bent over backwards to allow for the validity of you holding your opinions, while stating their own. Perhaps you could do the same?
1 Like
A gun free utopia? Youâre right, it was an exaggeration. But the those with these systems in place havenât demonstrated any success over those who donât.
First off in your scenario we are assuming Mary is making a straw purchase. But what is sheâs not? We should revoke her right because she is a victim of crime? I donât think we should blame the victim here. There are plenty of people who are reasonably responsible and still get their guns stolen. Cops occasionally get their guns stolen, or leave them in a bathroom somewhere. Even half way decent gun safes can be broken into by two people who know what they are doing and a couple of pry bars. Just like the locks on your doors, safes a deterrent - not fool proof security.
But using your scenario I still donât think it will curb straw purchases much. Tim will just expand his network to get George or Pam to buy him a gun. Or he will just do the more probable thing, and buy it off of the black market.
Missouri has a system in place for when you buy Sudafed (even childrenâs Sudafed) your ID is taken and you are limited to how much you can buy each month. This has failed to curb meth production, as Missouri is still #1 in the country for meth production. They either widened their network to get more people to buy the Sudafed, or used other methods to make meth. All it has done is make me cuss and mumble as I have to go back home and get my forgotten ID for my sick kid to get some relief.
Sorry - I got this comment mixed up with another post that said something like âOnly two nukes were used to hurt people, but I would still consider them as negative items.â (paraphrased) No, I donât think citizens should have ICBMs⌠well, large rockets are ok (go Space X), just not loaded with nukes.
Sorry for being a jerk. I do see where youâre coming from. Democracy works better at smaller scales and I think local autonomy is really important. Gun law would be a good thing for states to cooperate on but such polaried opinion itâs unlikely. I guess thatâs the challenge.
I donât dislike diversity but as a purely practical some things are probably better off standardized. Traffic law is maybe a less inflammatory example.
Iâm not sure I hope to accomplish anything. But you admit itâs possible the supreme court could revisit the issue. If that happens it wonât be because everyone in the country shut up about it for 30 years. For your sake feel free to ignore anything I have to say about the 2nd amendment that you donât like.
Sorry.
1 Like
Using pejoratives like âantisâ is a fairly clear indication that youâre not really interested in negotiation, or rational discussion. In fact, I think itâs fairly clear that your position is that you wonât cede one single inch to the other side.
Thatâs not negotiation, my friend.
1 Like
