Know Thy Enemies

LOL. emotional obsession or gun fetish? How about a nation of gun-rights enthusiast?

My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

LOL. emotional obsession or gun fetish? How about a nation of gun-rights enthusiast? Originally Posted by GP

I think the majority of "gun rights enthusiasts" would find it an impossible task to define 3 or 4 other rights guaranteed in the constitution, without first looking them up.

So i think it's more likely, a gun fetish.

Jack, why do you always insists on calling people who support the 2nd amendment as having a "gun fetish"? Originally Posted by GP

it might have something to do with the "liberal" interpretation of the amendment. It states maintaining a "well-regulated militia". It does not say that everyone attending a gun show can walk out with an military style assault weapon. When the amendment was enacted, they were using flint-locks, not 30 clip guns.

I had a discussion with one of the union laborers this summer about assault weapons and when I asked him why he wanted to own one, his response was: "well, because I can, and because it's kinda like candy for a kid." Right, a kid with an assault rifle.

Look, I do not agree with the new NYS law and seriously do not think it will stop gun violence significantly, if at all. Hell, the CT guns were registered to his mother. The NY law wouldn't cover this case at all. Almost every recent incidence of gun violence is directly related to the mental condition of the antagonist. Perhaps this would be a better place to focus efforts, although this would be extremely difficult to predict and outcome.

Defending the right to own assault weapons based on the second amendment is clearly a stretch, at best, and IMHO think you have had too much of the NRA kool-aid.

I think the majority of "gun rights enthusiasts" would find it an impossible task to define 3 or 4 other rights guaranteed in the constitution, without first looking them up.

So i think it's more likely, a gun fetish. Originally Posted by Doove

I would doubt if you went on the street and randomly picked 10 people that a simple majority could answer the same question. So would they all have fetishes, too?

I would doubt if you went on the street and randomly picked 10 people that a simple majority could answer the same question. So would they all have fetishes, too? Originally Posted by pyramider

Are any of them running around acting like constitutional rights activists?

Are any of them running around acting like constitutional rights activists? Originally Posted by Doove

errrr doove ahhhh can you rush your move to China

pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Are any of them running around acting like constitutional rights activists? Originally Posted by Doove

There are crusaders for any cause out there. SO to answer your question is yes. Plus, there are some that are trying to change the constitution to fit their beliefs.

My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car. Originally Posted by vm1200

And my guns have killed fewer people that Dubya's 2 BS wars that Republicans seem to enjoy starting.....ijs

There are crusaders for any cause out there. SO to answer your question is yes. Plus, there are some that are trying to change the constitution to fit their beliefs. Originally Posted by pyramider

In a lot of ways, the Constitution is like the bible - you can get it to say pretty much anything you want. That, and the ones who want to rely on it the most are the ones who can't make the argument using, well, any other argument.

it might have something to do with the "liberal" interpretation of the amendment. It states maintaining a "well-regulated militia". It does not say that everyone attending a gun show can walk out with an military style assault weapon. When the amendment was enacted, they were using flint-locks, not 30 clip guns. Originally Posted by MountainGoat

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to help prevent, and if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government. With that said, you are correct, the militia and hunters as well as everyone was using flintlocks back when the constitution was written. But so was the government/military. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that if the government/military is able to use more modern weapons, that the people should be able to as well? I think it does.

I had a discussion with one of the union laborers this summer about assault weapons and when I asked him why he wanted to own one, his response was: "well, because I can, and because it's kinda like candy for a kid." Right, a kid with an assault rifle. Originally Posted by MountainGoat

1st off, the problem started by having a discussion with a union laborer. They are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. LOL Looking beyond that, this laborer was actually somewhat right. Because HE CAN. Where in the constitution does it say he can't?

Look, I do not agree with the new NYS law and seriously do not think it will stop gun violence significantly, if at all. Hell, the CT guns were registered to his mother. The NY law wouldn't cover this case at all. Almost every recent incidence of gun violence is directly related to the mental condition of the antagonist. Perhaps this would be a better place to focus efforts, although this would be extremely difficult to predict and outcome. Originally Posted by MountainGoat

Agree 10000000000000%

Defending the right to own assault weapons based on the second amendment is clearly a stretch, at best, and IMHO think you have had too much of the NRA kool-aid. Originally Posted by MountainGoat

I don't see it as a stretch at all. I see it as putting the "militia" (ie:THE PEOPLE) on a more level playing field in case the government becomes too tyrannical.

In a lot of ways, the Constitution is like the bible - you can get it to say pretty much anything you want. That, and the ones who want to rely on it the most are the ones who can't make the argument using, well, any other argument. Originally Posted by Doove

Great, we agree ...

With that said, you are correct, the militia and hunters as well as everyone was using flintlocks back when the constitution was written. But so was the government/military. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that if the government/military is able to use more modern weapons, that the people should be able to as well? I think it does. Originally Posted by GP

I can't argue this except to point out that our current government has access to, well where to start: RPGs, tanks, b-1's, smart bombs, and so on. Do you seriously think an unregulated bunch of chuckleheads like the aforementioned union laborer with assault weapons would have any chance in keeping the US military in check?

Not trying to argue here, just wanting to hear another point of view

I don't see this as an argument. I see it as us having a nice, healthy discussion of differing ideas.

No, I do not. BUT..... and this is a big BUT.... From the people I know in the military and talking with them, I think it is highly unlikely that many (if any) of them would ever "engage" the PEOPLE of this country. I think it is more likely that they would either lay down their arms, or take up arms with the people in the overthrow of a government that has gotten out of control. I think these scenarios are more likely to play out. Not to get off subject, but look at other countries that have done this in the last decade. It proves it is possible. Even with that said, I still believe in and hope for a free country. To me, a free country means that I should be allowed to do whatever I want without the government infringing on my rights. I understand this will always be a point of contention and debate. I guess deep down in my heart, I think the forefathers of this country did a miraculous job framing the constitution. I always thought of myself as a libertarian, but I guess I am also a constitutionalist.

Hopefully the NRA is above defining themselves in terms of U2 lyrics. An overrated, pukingly self-righteous band if ever there was one.

Interesting New Yorker article, though there's no reason to believe it word for word.