BloodRider Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 In this case, as sacred, God-given, inalienable, universal rights that must be defended at all costs no matter against whom or when or where or, of course, what the reality of the situation is. The fact is a lot of people look on the second amendment as The Answer To Big Government Or Tyranny, and any attempt at gun regulation or gun control as "ban" and in contradiction to that and, basically, as heresy, blasphemy, and the most wicked of evils. And then they gather in Nevada, say, and protect some dipshit rancher who didn't want to obey the law and bleat triumphantly about what a glorious victory For The Second Amendment they've made. Yeah. It is super ironic that when GWB was wiping his ass with the constitution and the deficit - not one of these useless fucker picked up arms. Torture is worthy of the 2nd amendment? Domestic Spying? Propety Rights violations? Rounding up journalists for political reasons? Starting wars on false premises? Gitmo? Rendition? Ignoring writs of Habeus Corpus? and more... Nope. Doesn't require 2nd amendment intervention. What does tho? Cows. Oh and a black man in office. What a bunch of shit holes. Again I wish the Feds would put all their sorry asses in jail. I wouldn't trust a one of them to protect anyone's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Mostly, its people like Ramsay, who turn "I want to work with teachers and educators and mental health professionals and, yes, law enforcement, to stop kids from being shot up in schools" into "I'm coming for your guns, suckas", that make me want to support actually taking guns from people out of sheer spite. Jesus fucking Christ what a ridiculous reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 But, in other news, a federal judge has struck down Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban. A judge that was nominated by George W. Bush and endorsed by Rick Santorum. This kind of news is always the best when sprinkled with a touch of irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 This kind of news is always the best when sprinkled with a touch of irony. Scalia's dissent in Windsor being cited by several judges striking down gay marriage bans is one of my favorite things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I think distaste for the Second Amendment comes from its perceived perversion by the gun lobby. The original motivations behind it (i.e. well-regulated militias) are as quaint and obsolete as the Third Amendment's rules about quartering soldiers, but the modern individualisation of the thing, together with the mythos about "rebelling against tyranny", has created a political minefield. Its funny if you replace militia with local police and swat teams then it doesn't seem that antiquated. How can the police state and it increasing militarization justify itself without a heavily armed civil population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Looks to me like Paul's letter just added its own right-wing euphemisms, just the way you are. "Politician-speak?" So we're just ignoring "mental health professionals... parents and educators" because hey, that's just verbal fat, and the real meat is gun control. And not just gun control, but a gun-control "agenda." (Everything's scarier when it's an agenda! Be afraid!) And not just gun control agenda, but "coming for your guns." (Run for the hills!) It's OK. You prefer your own politician-speak which involves ignoring what is actually said and substituting your own words in order to perpetuate an atmosphere of, yes, paranoia. "Gun control" isn't the same as banning guns or "coming for" them, which I see you've later interpreted to mean coming for "some of" your guns - a grudging concession to [some of] reality, I guess. Really, I don't care at this point. This kind of fear-based paranoid ultra-defensiveness bordering on religious fanaticism regarding guns has left me with zero sympathy for the cause of the Sacred Second Amendment.-I said Paul shouldn't have altered the quote to put words in Obama's mouth. I hate fundraising letters. But the best propaganda has a kernel of truth, and this is no exception -Your use of "religious fanaticism" and "sacred" just proves you make no attempt to actually understand the views of those who disagree with you on this issue. What other rights are you willing to toss away because you don't like their supporters? Free speech? Freedom of religion? Right to trial by jury? The 2nd is not sacred. However, the liberty amendments do mean, at least, what they say. If firearms can be banned because of tragic events what other Constitutional provisions can be set aside due to similar circumstances? The 4th's right to be free from unreasonalbe searches and seizures, the 1st's freedom of speech and the press?What if those provisions are being used to hide people who are acting to harm others should they be set aside due to tragic events?Demanding that amendments only be modified through the amendment process is essential to protect liberty interests the government feels are problematic in times of crisis.On this board after Newtown a boarder was advocating setting aside the 4th amendment and allowing warrantless searches of people's homes to enforce a nationwide ban on firearms. When I raised the 4th amendment concerns his reaction was (paraphrasing because it has been some time): not everyone holds the Consitution "sacred" like you do Scot. Again, desiring the use of the specified amendment process is not holding the Consitution as "sacred". It is preventing the Government from setting aside expressly guaranteed political liberties at its own convienence. RBPL,I understand that. However, if a precident were set of ignoring express liberty protections due to a tragedy, that seems like a bad idea to me. That doesn't mean I, or others who view those liberty protections as important, view the 2nd or other liberty amendments as "sacred" as detractors like to claim. However, we do see amendments being set aside for the convienence of the agents of government as dangerous.Believe it or not I do recall a 3rd amendment case coming up last year. Here it is:http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/ :agree: I am not a gun-nut, I don't own a gun. But I am a 2nd-amendment "absolutist" and NRA supporter because of the reasons you list. Vigilantly defending the Bill of Rights is not evidence of some irrational attachment to ink on paper, it's a rational attempt to preserve the Constitution's teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Mostly, its people like Ramsay, who turn "I want to work with teachers and educators and mental health professionals and, yes, law enforcement, to stop kids from being shot up in schools" into "I'm coming for your guns, suckas", that make me want to support actually taking guns from people out of sheer spite. Jesus fucking Christ what a ridiculous reaction. It seems I've touched a nerve. I wholeheartedly encourage you to try taking people's guns away "out of spite," I'm sure it will work out great for you :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 What does being a '2nd amendment absolutist' mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 What does being a '2nd amendment absolutist' mean? I support the right for individuals to own nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I support the right for individuals to own nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers They sort of got settled in the sixties when they sold that Polaris submarine to the Joker, the Riddler, the Penguin and Catwoman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I support the right for individuals to own nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers Please tell me you're kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Please tell me you're kidding. Hey if you don't want to get nuked just don't break into my house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Alaska Republican continues the party's embrace of Rugged Manly Man Lawlessness: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dan-sullivan-anwr-invade-martyrdom You might say he's just some isolated yahoo, but I am not convinced of that. I think this slouching towards rebellion is increasingly a feature, not a bug, of the right wing and the Republican Party. Of course it's a feature. It's a deliberate strategy on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 It's a difficult situation. Wingnuts cannot be permitted to defy federal law with impunity, but I am sure the BLM doesn't want to start a shooting match over grazing rights. I'm not sure how one proceeds. Send in federal law enforcement. I mean, they are already doing that cause the FBI is investigating, but it frankly shouldn't have been allowed to continue this long. The only reason it has gone on this long is because the US government is terrified of the bad press they will get over it because the militia movement has backing from the republican party and the media will lap up the "controversy". Yeah. It is super ironic that when GWB was wiping his ass with the constitution and the deficit - not one of these useless fucker picked up arms. Torture is worthy of the 2nd amendment? Domestic Spying? Propety Rights violations? Rounding up journalists for political reasons? Starting wars on false premises? Gitmo? Rendition? Ignoring writs of Habeus Corpus? and more... Nope. Doesn't require 2nd amendment intervention. What does tho? Cows. Oh and a black man in office. What a bunch of shit holes. Again I wish the Feds would put all their sorry asses in jail. I wouldn't trust a one of them to protect anyone's rights. THat's cause it's not about liberty at all. That's why the militia movement waxes and wanes with how much the right controls the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armidil0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Hey if you don't want to get nuked just don't break into my house I hope you support some fucking strong back ground checks and long waiting time and a regularly up-to date registry. I am curious if you believe in limitations of freedom of speech, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. And if you DO believe in those limitations why you would NOT believe in common sense restrictions to the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 As to Sullivan and ANWR... My view - shared by a majority of Alaskans - is that ANWR has NOTHING to do with protecting the environment or endangered species or anything remotely similar. Rather, it is a federal 'land grab'. ANWR's status as a wildlife refuge will last until the federal government decides to sell oil/gas leases in that area, with the revenue going to the federal government, not the state. The federal government will never openly admit this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I hope you support some fucking strong back ground checks and long waiting time and a regularly up-to date registry. I am curious if you believe in limitations of freedom of speech, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. And if you DO believe in those limitations why you would NOT believe in common sense restrictions to the second. OK, for the record I was kidding. Thought it was obvious Have you seen where the "no yelling fire in a crowded theatre" idea came from? It was used by Justice Holmes to justify imprisoning a socialist who was protesting World War 1. So no, I don't support restrictions based on such a disingenuous and pernicious doctrine. Libel and slander are a different story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 OK, for the record I was kidding. Thought it was obvious Have you seen where the "no yelling fire in a crowded theatre" idea came from? It was used by Justice Holmes to justify imprisoning a socialist who was protesting World War 1. So no, I don't support restrictions based on such a disingenuous and pernicious doctrine. Libel and slander are a different story The original usage of the phrase doesn't remove the point about a level of restriction.There is a genuine safety concern with some speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armidil0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 OK, for the record I was kidding. Thought it was obvious Have you seen where the "no yelling fire in a crowded theatre" idea came from? It was used by Justice Holmes to justify imprisoning a socialist who was protesting World War 1. So no, I don't support restrictions based on such a disingenuous and pernicious doctrine. Libel and slander are a different story I know people that actually believe that you should own any weapon of any type imaginable. So it wasn't very hard for me to think that someone else would believe it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 OK, for the record I was kidding. Thought it was obvious Have you seen where the "no yelling fire in a crowded theatre" idea came from? It was used by Justice Holmes to justify imprisoning a socialist who was protesting World War 1. So no, I don't support restrictions based on such a disingenuous and pernicious doctrine. Libel and slander are a different story You have used this fallacious line of reasoning before. Just because some SCOTUS justice applied the logic incorrectly, doesn't make the idea itself incorrect. CF: Scalia dissent in United States v. Windsor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.