There you go calling names when you lose the argument. You are really a joke CW. You are so bad I find it hard to take you serious on any matter. You lose argument after argument and only have personal insults to fall back on. You parent/parents must have really been bad. Did they not give you hugs when you were a kid?? Given your post history, he/she/they had to teach you to blame white people for everything that happens to you in life. There has to be a reason for a person to be so bitter. I actually feel sorry for you. Please let go of all the hate you hold in your heart for your sanity. It is okay really!!
This has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives. Guns are weapons and should be kept under a much more tight wrap. As SamFisher has repeatedly mentioned though, our society already decided to double down on stupid when we decided that letting kids be mass murdered is alright as long as we can have our guns. You are quite frankly something else. People like you who love the constitution when it fits your agenda are ridiculous. How has Obama shown no respect for the constitution compared to other presidents we've had? Go learn some American history. Again, the appeal to authority of the politics of men who lived hundreds of years ago (owned slaves, killed numerous people, engaged in many other things our society would consider horrendous today) is a bit baffling. Times change. They couldn't have predicted in a few hundred years the world would be what it is today. No one could have (maybe Nostradamus lel). Limiting guns is not inherently bad just because the founding fathers made a provision like the second amendment. I want to see a better argument than that. In developed countries, where has people's freedom been destroyed from not having guns?
Yes, I've clearly lost the argument. It wasn't you that lost the argument by posting complete garbage and insinuating I was a black kid from the inner city and therefore too poorly educated to understand your horse****, internet hack Constitutional logic. You're so right. Maybe if I grew up in the suburbs with dip****s like you that got real schooling then I wouldn't hold so much hate in my heart. Derp.
Dude, everyone loses in reading your junior high level educated posts. It's kind of like reading a MAD magazine really.
Because he probably doesn't believe half the things you've convinced yourself he does to validate your own opinions. The president has training and teaching tenure in constitutional law and is closing in on twenty years of big state and federal governing experience. He's not just spewing random bible-verses and hollow barbs to remind everyone (and himself) what table he sits at in the cafeteria.
He has training in the Constitution??? That is hard to believe after his executive amnesty. I think he needs some more "training". All rhetoric aside, I was serious about this. Why does he not just give an executive order? There is no way to get the Constitution changed at this time, he just doesn't have the numbers. He has used executive orders in situations like this in the past, why not now?
The bill of rights (amendments 1-10) happened all at one time. The 13th amendment happened almost 100 years later, after the Civil War. They don't renumber them each time a new amendment is passed. I don't agree that the amendments in the bill of rights are in order of importance (either now or at the time of their writing) but your argument against that stance is terrible. A much better argument is to look at the third amendment in comparison to the fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth, unless you think quartering troops or not is of near paramount importance.
Fortunately, the founders knew that times change and that it would be important that the laws be allowed to change with the times. Thus they empowered congress to pass new laws that fit within the framework of the constitution, or where the constitution is no longer sufficient, to amend the constitution as necessary. The constitution already has 27 amendments, including an amendment that specifically eliminates a previous amendment. If the second amendment is so repugnant, work on the twenty-eighth in order to get rid of it. I don't think the support is there to do so though.
Yes I agree with all of this. Especially the last part. I just hope eventually a time will come when Americans give up their gun fetish and something can be done to limit guns in this country.
Truth is that real gun control designed to keep concealed and powerful guns out of people who have unstable personalities would save many many lives. That doesn't require changing the constitution. The constitution never says that anyone has the right to own an automatic rifle capable of ripping an individual up into 50 thousand pieces in 8.4 seconds. But it will never happen. The reality is that the people we need protection from aren't criminals, it's our co-workers, our friends, our fellow students, and our family who happen to legally obtain a gun and willing to use it when emotionally distressed. They are normal and healthy until they go crazy and use it. Then they are just mentally ill. Most of the people like CML don't want a gun to protect themselves - that's the excuse. The real truth is that having a gun makes them feel like they have a bigger penis, makes them feel powerful. "Don't mess with me, I gotta gun". Any scrawny little b*stard or out of shape fat blob - all of a sudden can become finely tuned killing machine.
They're not countries but how about Chicago, Detroit, D.C., and New Orleans.... if you are using death by gun as the primary measure. Those cities have some of the strictest gun laws on the books yet the highest rates of death by gunfire. You're setting up a bit of a strawman here. No one's freedom is going to be destroyed by a single restriction. We live with all kinds of restrictions placed on us by common law. I've never owned a gun in my life and fired one only once over fifty years ago, so I'm on self-restriction.
Automatic rifles don't even rate in the firearm homicide tables in the United States. Far more people are murdered with knives than are murdered with rifles of any kind each year, let alone automatic rifles. Handguns are the tool of choice in the overwhelming majority of gun homicides. Most gun homicides are not crazy friends and relatives, they are criminals out on the streets, largely killing other criminals. About half of gun homicide victims are young black men, and more than half of the people committing homicides with firearms are young black men. So, if you really want to take guns away from a specific group of people, your most efficacious group to disarm is not the mentally ill, it is young, black males, age 14-35. Of course, then you start running afoul of two constitutional provisions instead of just one. Not owning a gun, I can't speak to the reasons people choose to own them. On those occasions I have considered getting a gun, it would be primarily for shooting at the range amd penis size never crossed my mind in the consideration of firearms. Mexico has very strict anti-gun laws. No one ever gets murdered with a gun in Mexico, right?
Writing on a sign vs writing on paper. Both are supposedly enforced by law... because the criminals ignore the scribbling.
Oh, that pesky fact checking that proves Obama's claim "that mass killings don't happen in other countries" as "mostly false". This analysis didn't even include the Charlie Hebdo style attacks, or mass killings by non-firearms which happen in places like China. That would make Obama's claims even more false. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
Obamas statement can still be true if you interpret "mass killings" as instances of a mass shooting spree and not as total number of lives lost. US has 133 out of 320 million while none of the other countries are as high proportionally. Furthermore, we are talking about dead lives here. I don't think it matters whether it was from the result of mass killings or just general "normal" killings by firearms. By any metric the us dwarfs other advanced nations in deaths by firearms.
look at the stats in the article. This is pulitzer prize winning site -- sorry if I accept their facts over your opinions.
