Quake3World

scared? wrote:Restrictions on guns are constitutional...

Assault rifles should be banned...

Unless ur a moron...

Thanks for proving that you know NOTHING about the Second Amendment.

Actually u don't...Even Scalia says ur a moron...

lol, a 'no u' response, shocker.

At any rate, show me Scalia's opinion that supports your statement. If it's D.C. v. Heller, then it sort of supports your statement, but not completely. Besides, the argument overall hinges on interpretations of phrases like "the people", "militia", and the like. To me, it would seem that "assault weapons" (which is a fucking stupid, misused term) should be more protected than hunting rifles, given that their intended Constitutionally-protected purposes is for service in a militia to provide security of a free state. One of the statements from the Court to come out of that case was that the Second Amendment didn't protect weapons "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes", which is extremely ambiguous.

To my knowledge there's no ruling that specifically states that banning "assault weapons" is constitutional or that they should be banned. Restrictions? Yes. Ban on "assault weapons"? No.

In the heller decision he said "reasonable restrictions" on guns is constitutional. He also just did an interview promoting his book where again he said reasonable restictions on guns is totally constitutional. Same exact wording. U mad?

And wtf should there not be a ban on assault rifles? Wtf is the reasonable reason why American civilians should be able to own assault rifles? U sum sort of paranoud militia moron?...

Nightshade wrote:...weapons "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"...

lol wut. a judge said this? it could mean almost anything...

Let me get this straight: The whole point of the Right to Bear Arms is to enable militias, yet Geoff here, is calling anyone who approves a weapon that would be useful to a militia, a paranoid moron?

am i the only one tired of hearing the phrase "assault rifle"

i'm tired of hearing the phrase "at the end of the day"

At the end of the day, everyone needs an assault rifle...

DTS wrote:Let me get this straight: The whole point of the Right to Bear Arms is to enable militias, yet Geoff here, is calling anyone who approves a weapon that would be useful to a militia, a paranoid moron?

rednecks prepping their bunkers for a zombie apocalypse and/or obama's stalinist purge (or buying weapons for personal defense) are not a well-regulated militia.

DTS wrote:

Don't laugh at me, DTS. It makes me look bad...

It's not so militias can form later, when needed?

Why would you need to own a machine gun?

It's just fucking stupid.

America is no crazier than any other country. Everywhere else in the developed world, people will get so angry they'll temporarily want to kill someone. In those countries though, they don't have ready access to guns.

Same with psychos.

America makes it very easy to get on the news.

DTS wrote:It's not so militias can form later, when needed?

no

Nightshade wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:graph

Nice graph, PuFF. Relevance? It's certainly not addressing the point I made. So...

Really can you not be bothered to think about it for the half second it takes to figure out how it's relevant to your point?

You said: "I understand why people hold the perceptions they do about gun violence in the US. They just don't make sense to me. I think they're a function of media hype more than real numbers"


What I was getting at: facts suggest that people's perceptions are due to the real numbers, not hype.

Guns because of the right to defend yourself? Against what, exactly?

I'm conflicted. I hate redneck jesus lovin republicans, but the right to protect oneself in your own home from the trash of society is a valid one. But carrying a concealed weapon around in public like a fucking texas ranger... well, that's retarded and should be stopped.

Eraser wrote:Guns because of the right to defend yourself? Against what, exactly?

not guns per se, but weapons. guns fall under that catagory.
you have the right to take up arms against the government in case of tyranny, or against your enviroment if your government fails to protect you.

at least thats my understanding of it.

scared? wrote:In the heller decision he said "reasonable restrictions" on guns is constitutional. He also just did an interview promoting his book where again he said reasonable restictions on guns is totally constitutional. Same exact wording. U mad?

And wtf should there not be a ban on assault rifles? Wtf is the reasonable reason why American civilians should be able to own assault rifles? U sum sort of paranoud militia moron?...

I should have been more specific in my original comment to you, it was directed at your statement that "assault weapons" should be banned, not about restrictions being constitutional.

There's no reason "assault weapons" should be banned. They are NO DIFFERENT than any other semi-auto rifle, except for appearance and accessories. Besides, rifles (of ANY TYPE) only account for FOUR PERCENT of all gun homicides. Jumping up and down screaming about banning them just marks you as a fucking dolt that's caught up in media hype. Further, and this is what really kills me in this whole debate, the vast majority of gun homicides aren't committed by legal gun owners. As I asked earlier, why should I have to have my rights restricted because criminals making up a small percentage of the population commit crimes? Sorry, but that's fucking stupid. That's like saying "let's ban Ferraris because a few people have killed somebody with a Ford", i.e., retarded.

edit: and WTF? The original tinfoil-hatted crusader doesn't support militias? You some kinda facist, government-lovin' homo now?

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: Really can you not be bothered to think about it for the half second it takes to figure out how it's relevant to your point?

You said: "I understand why people hold the perceptions they do about gun violence in the US. They just don't make sense to me. I think they're a function of media hype more than real numbers"


What I was getting at: facts suggest that people's perceptions are due to the real numbers, not hype.

Fair enough, but I believe that was in the context of my point about gun homicides vs. number of legally owned guns. That, to me, ought to be weighted more heavily. What about the tens of millions of legal, responsible gun owners that don't kill people over sneakers every day?

Tsakali wrote:I'm conflicted. I hate redneck jesus lovin republicans, but the right to protect oneself in your own home from the trash of society is a valid one. But carrying a concealed weapon around in public like a fucking texas ranger... well, that's retarded and should be stopped.

So you should only be allowed to protect yourself in the place where you spend the least time? The "trash of society" only pose a threat when you're home? Do you feel that the police, whom the Supreme Court have ruled are under no obligation to protect you, should always be there to keep you from harm? Yeah, there's some retardation happening here alright.

whom the Supreme Court have ruled are under no obligation to protect you

wait what?

lol, yeah it threw me for a loop when I read it, too. I'll see if I can find the link again.

EDIT: Not the link I was reading yesterday, but it discusses the same ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... cotus.html
Time to re-think owning a gun? Unless ur a moron...(or Dutch)

MKJ wrote:

Eraser wrote:Guns because of the right to defend yourself? Against what, exactly?

not guns per se, but weapons. guns fall under that catagory.
you have the right to take up arms against the government in case of tyranny, or against your enviroment if your government fails to protect you.

at least thats my understanding of it.

So the government says that if they turn into tyrants, you have the right to take up arms against them? First of all, why would I need the government's approval if I wish to oppose them and overthrow them? Would people really go like "oh but the law forbids us to have weapons, so lets not revolt against our government"? Also, wouldn't the first thing a tyrant would do is scrap the constitution and impose a weapon ban?

Second thing, a revolution can be done without bloodshed. See Egypt.

Also, there's no need for a weapon in defending your home if the other dude doesn't have a weapon either. And you say when the gov't fails to protect you. How do you determine if that is the case?