Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
Rather than listen to that nutjob AJ...
here is a well measured response to the gun control advocates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIQx9YejJlg
Edit: why the fuck won't this embed?
here is a well measured response to the gun control advocates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIQx9YejJlg
Edit: why the fuck won't this embed?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIQx9YejJlg"]Marine to Feinstein's Gun Proposal: Unconstitutional Laws are not Laws - YouTube[/ame]
http* not https
I love how the government hasn't even done anything yet, except say they're going to research the issue, and everyone is in an absolute uproar. Good stuff!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where does the 2nd amendment condemn regulation? I understand the popular argument is that confiscation will follow registration, but regulation alone is not unconstitutional. If we all agree that unstable individuals with weapons are the problem and not guns themselves, why is it so outlandish to propose further regulation without infringing on the rights of law-abiding individuals? I went through more stringent regulations to get my drivers license than I did to get my rifle.
Where does the 2nd amendment condemn regulation? I understand the popular argument is that confiscation will follow registration, but regulation alone is not unconstitutional. If we all agree that unstable individuals with weapons are the problem and not guns themselves, why is it so outlandish to propose further regulation without infringing on the rights of law-abiding individuals? I went through more stringent regulations to get my drivers license than I did to get my rifle.
And what they're talking about will never get passed in Congress. Maybe get passed in the Senate, but not Congress.
Irregardless, there's no point in throwing a conniption when nothing has even happened yet. Obama and the White House haven't even issued a statement regarding what they'd like to do yet.
Irregardless, there's no point in throwing a conniption when nothing has even happened yet. Obama and the White House haven't even issued a statement regarding what they'd like to do yet.
because Joe Bidans quote from today infers they are not going to rush and jam anything down our throats
How can anyone conclude that bypassing proper legislative channels to get what you want with executive orders is anything but dictatorial?
An executive order would bypass them both
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNjxzFgKcHY&player_embedded"]Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns - YouTube[/ame]
EDIT- What dmnepc said ^^
Where does the 2nd Amendment allow for ammunition? That's why legal contracts are interpreted and why anything can be twisted. The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted in light of its entirety, that is, the intentions of the Framers towards the establishment and sustainability of a nation built on freedom. The 2nd Amendment is to be interpreted in alignment with the overall Constitutional thesis.
But regardless, regulation is an "infringement" on keeping and bearing Arms. If the Constitution wanted regulation it would have clearly stated the terms for such regulation. It doesn't and it doesn't in the slightest way imply towards this. The theme of the 2nd Amendment is for the "security of a free State". Regulation would be taking away from the security of a free State.
Where does the Constitution define Arms regulation and how should it be administered is the better question.
It's so fucked up that there's politicians and lobbyist writing bills to exploit rare events such as Sandy Hook. This reminds me of when I used to work in a call center, every single time someone crossed the line with any small privilege, it was banned for everyone.
This resulted in every single pleasurable privilege being taken away. You couldn't read a magazine while not on a call, could only browse the corporate website, was punished for looking at your cell phone while on break - they literally wanted us to stare at the foam cubicle until we took our next call like the perfect little automaton. It's the most depressing job I ever held, and I found another one within 3 months.
Keep in mind this was a call center with 100 or so people.. the US has 300+ million - this means there will always be events that the policy makers are able to plan for and cherry pick to enact stricter and stricter laws until there is no semblance of freedom left.
The only difference between now and all of history is that due to technology there won't be any going back. Oppressive technologies will become so great within our lifetime that the people simply won't stand a chance at changing the system anymore. Power will concentrate, technology will advance, people will suffer.
I hope I'm wrong.
This resulted in every single pleasurable privilege being taken away. You couldn't read a magazine while not on a call, could only browse the corporate website, was punished for looking at your cell phone while on break - they literally wanted us to stare at the foam cubicle until we took our next call like the perfect little automaton. It's the most depressing job I ever held, and I found another one within 3 months.
Keep in mind this was a call center with 100 or so people.. the US has 300+ million - this means there will always be events that the policy makers are able to plan for and cherry pick to enact stricter and stricter laws until there is no semblance of freedom left.
The only difference between now and all of history is that due to technology there won't be any going back. Oppressive technologies will become so great within our lifetime that the people simply won't stand a chance at changing the system anymore. Power will concentrate, technology will advance, people will suffer.
I hope I'm wrong.
Well regulated does NOT mean what you think it means.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." - Source.
There are actually quite a few sources on what well-regulated means in this context - you should do your own research and you'll see.
Any type of government imposed regulations are by definition an infringement.
I didn't ask what, "well regulated" meant in the context of the 2nd amendment, nor did I imply any definition of the term. I asked where regulation is explicitly prohibited. There are many forms of regulation which do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am talking about regulation of sale and trade. For example, minimum age requirements, background checks, etc. Interpreting the second amendment as prohibiting government from any regulation of firearms in any aspect is just absurd. Do you believe it was the intent to allow 8 year olds to purchase assault rifles? A certain level of logic and interpretation must be applied. I'm not arguing that any of the proposed regulations mentioned in this thread are reasonable, but that the second amendment doesn't explicitly prohibit every sort of regulation.
