Gun Control

[Tsing Tao]

Yeah, it kinda does. In time, the pro-gun argument, as it currently stands, will prove to be as specious as the pro-tobacco argument. It's already obvious to thinking people. "Debating" you on the matter serves no purpose other than to pass time fruitlessly, much like trying to "debate" a dyed-in-the-wool creationist on evolution. You're the jem of gun rights.

It's really not the same just because you say it is. If you wish to prove how it's the same, do so. If you can't, then continue to obfuscate and post replies that have no substance or arguments in them - you're quite good at that, at least. Just because you state that the gun argument (which has been going on for decades with no progress whatsoever on either side) is going to prove itself the same as the smoking one, doesn't mean it will. You're not some prognosticator of debates and arguments to tell us what the future holds (and who can't state any argument here in the present). At least the people who argued smoking back then had some information to argue.

Jimmie, at least, is attempting to debate the points. You've got zippo.

 

[fhl]

Yeah, it kinda does. In time, the pro-gun argument, as it currently stands, will prove to be as specious as the pro-tobacco argument. It's already obvious to thinking people. "Debating" you on the matter serves no purpose other than to pass time fruitlessly, much like trying to "debate" a dyed-in-the-wool creationist on evolution. You're the jem of gun rights.

A leftist coming right out and admitting that they have just as little regard for the constitution as they do the bible.

 

[Tsing Tao]

A leftist coming right out and admitting that they have just as little regard for the constitution as they do the bible.

Why would you expect a Canadian to have any respect for the US Constitution?

 

[destriero]

Yeah, it kinda does. In time, the pro-gun argument, as it currently stands, will prove to be as specious as the pro-tobacco argument. It's already obvious to thinking people. "Debating" you on the matter serves no purpose other than to pass time fruitlessly, much like trying to "debate" a dyed-in-the-wool creationist on evolution. You're the jem of gun rights.

I don't recall anything in the Constitution about tobacco or drug use. I am anything but a strict-Constitutionalist.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I don't recall anything in the Constitution about tobacco or drug use. I am anything but a strict-Constitutionalist.

My post had nothing to do with the Constitution. Much like current gun laws probably have nothing to do with what the framers of that Constitution intended. Not being a Constitutional scholar, I'm guessing of course.

 

[Tsing Tao]

My post had nothing to do with the Constitution. Much like current gun laws probably have nothing to do with what the framers of that Constitution intended. Not being a Constitutional scholar, I'm guessing of course.

Current gun laws weren't even around when the second amendment was passed. You could argue that they're all against the constitution. However, while they weren't part of the 2nd Amendment, I believe them (most of them) to make sense. The ones that directly prohibit the exercising of Constitutional rights (like the prohibition of firearms in New York City or downtown Chicago until recently) are the only ones I have problems with.

But background checks, etc? Totally make sense.

 

[destriero]

My post had nothing to do with the Constitution. Much like current gun laws probably have nothing to do with what the framers of that Constitution intended. Not being a Constitutional scholar, I'm guessing of course.

Sorry, I looked at the replies to your quote. But now that you stated it... you're not going to argue intent with a bunch of rich, dead oligarchs. IOW, you can only assume what's written, not what you infer or imply.

On another note; I have more/better training in firearms than the vast majority of LE. I would be happy to prove it on any range/shoot. Nobody to blame for my (lack of) protection for myself and family. An example; a double-homicide a 1/4 mile from my home some 9 years ago. Elderly couple in a $3MM home with alarms/closed-circuit, etc. Not going to be me.

I'd rather have the Constitution and not need it... then need it and not have it. Works for both.

 

[jimmiebarton]

is the constitution, and the bible for that matter subject to revision in face of evidence and progress??

OR WRITTEN IN STONE?

in 21'st century ...our problems differ greatly than 19th??? or the 30th

 

[Tsing Tao]

is the constitution, and the bible for that matter subject to revision in face of evidence and progress??

OR WRITTEN IN STONE?

in 21'st century ...our problems differ greatly than 19th??? or the 30th

I would say they both should be subject to evidence and progress. Ie, in the case of the Bible, if God came down tomorrow and said "You boneheads have all this wrong..." we should be willing to accept that the Bible needed to be re-written.

So what evidence do you have that says the Constitution should be re-written?

You do realize that if it's just a matter of wanting the Constitution to be re-written, there is, in fact, a process to do just that. Follow the process and get it re-written.

 

[jimmiebarton]

Sorry, I looked at the replies to your quote. But now that you stated it... you're not going to argue intent with a bunch of rich, dead oligarchs. IOW, you can only assume what's written, not what you infer or imply.

On another note; I have more/better training in firearms than the vast majority of LE. I would be happy to prove it on any range/shoot. Nobody to blame for my (lack of) protection for myself and family. An example; a double-homicide a 1/4 mile from my home some 9 years ago. Elderly couple in a $3MM home with alarms/closed-circuit, etc. Not going to be me.

I'd rather have the Constitution and not need it... then need it and not have it. Works for both.

are you riskarb?