Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Except it is a legal document. Which means it will be ascertained by an adversarial legal system. I try not to use the constitutionalist arguement simply because who knows what the law means these days? Obama has named the constitution as "flawed". I did vote for him

Peace

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by 46ACE

 

Oh so you were trolling were you?

in English please.

I quoted a post that claimed:"the"shooting tragedy"would not have happened had the lunatic not gotten his hands on a firearm...I exposed the fallacy to that kind of logic. (I.e you could say that about anything!) I see absolutely no connection to any definition of "trolling" I am familiar with infact: I should ask the same of you

TROLLING FOR A RESPONSE???

All this second amendment stuff has been "done to death" here recently.All those those comments are as valid today as they were last week. There is no reason to rehash all that stuff: You've gotta keep up.
its like the "valid birth certificate wars":

opening post:" yadda yadda newly uncovered document..."
reply#1: " Ive seen the real one online"
reply#2-67 oh no you din't...oh yes I di'"
"stupid right wing teabaggin racist moron birther"
yada yada 3o more pages

pointless.just like most gun threads here
"guns are only for killing
killing is bad"
therefore guns are bad.
do you see the "irony" in this argument as itcompares to the lunatic's postings?
same argument same fallacies.

Reply to post by tiger5

That is exactly why you look at intent and original definitions


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by tiger5

 

That is exactly why you look at intent and original definitions

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

No, people look at Intent in order to pervert the meaning to suit their own agenda's.

Ever thought they just meant exactly what they said?

Thought not...

Tiger5
The consitution (as I'm sure you are aware) was subverted on many levels at different times, but none more so than by the previous administration.

It means very little now, as it will always be argued about "Intent" and open to interpretation by those who seek to subvert it for their own ends.

Isn't the national guard the modern version of "militia"?

It's an interesting discussion as to what extent various parts of the constitution have been subverted, but at the end of the day, various amendments, bills, acts, laws, are all easily twisted by those who have a vested interest in doing so.

Lawyers and lobbyists - the bane of modern America, and if they want the constitution subverted they will find a way of doing so.

So really, the argument is moot, because America is run by corporations for corporations, and the citizenry are mere serfs, to do as they are told.

reply to post by Kryties


I believe in change alright. However, the Constitution and its implementation are black and white. Anyone who is unable to comprehend its wording or lack the knowledge thereof, isn't worth the time to debate with.

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by budski

 

I am proud to be a liberal. I know that the human rights of law abiding American people to enjoy the products of their hard won labours are under attack. Guns today. What will be next tomorrow. This is not about guns really it is about control. Perhaps son nutcase dresses up in a black cape and is dubbed "Batman" by the media then TPTB will try to ban the comic as Batman is a non conformist vigilante in the comics.

This is what happens when the Politicos loose the plot and have no cogent ideology for these troubled times. All they think of is cracking down on freedom. Authoritarianism is not only an aspect of the Soviets.

And yet so many of those who promote no gun control are right wing in their philosophy - this is the right wing that has taken away so many freedoms from you guys since 9/11.
But it is blindly accepted because it is wrapped up in the right words that appeal to those who see the oppression of others as equalling freedom for themselves.

Freedom is an overused word, and as a concept has no bearing on the US or many other countries today.

It really makes me laugh that people actually think they have even a modicum of freedom, especially when they cheer the homeland securty act, or the patriot act which have both done more to erode any sort of freedom than any empire in history - all brought in by a government that espoused freedom whilst doing the complete opposite, and which they wholeheartedly supported.

Not everybody Wholeheartedly supported the introduction of the patriot and military commissions acts. I don't know who you hangout with;.But the ones who objected were publicly called "unpatriotic, unamerican, lunatics and "terrorist"( you are either with us or with the "terrorists": and I voted for that guy)!

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Kryties

 

However, the Constitution and its implementation are black and white.

No they are not - there is always a way around "that damned piece of paper" to quote bush - and sure enough, he found ways around it, as do corporations every single day, along with their lobbyists.

As long as the political system is as corrupt as it is (not just the US, but many other countries as well) there will always be a way around it.

Believing in the constitution and it's infallibity is like believing in the tooth fairy.

Reply to post by budski

Yes it is.

Seems like people who place their "rights" squarely on that piece of paper dont really understand liberty at all.

That piece of paper doesnt make you free (quite the opposite actually) and it doesnt grant you any rights or liberties.

If I take your drivers license away and shred it up do you magically lose the ability to operate a motor vehicle?

I can drive around all day long without that license and I will keep my property without that piece of paper.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by budski

 

Yes it is.

Seems like people who place their "rights" squarely on that piece of paper dont really understand liberty at all.

That piece of paper doesnt make you free (quite the opposite actually) and it doesnt grant you any rights or liberties.

If I take your drivers license away and shred it up do you magically lose the ability to operate a motor vehicle?

I can drive around all day long without that license and I will keep my property without that piece of paper.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

How do you explain the many ways in which it is subverted?

Rights, liberties, freedoms - all are exploited, ignored and trodden on every single day.

In THEORY, it may be black and white, but in practice it's anything but.

(Nice to see you by the way - been a while )

Reply to post by budski

No, there is no difference. If there was, the Constitution would have been rewritten.

You are grasping at straws.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by budski

I dont think explanation is possible.

To explain how un-free we are you would need an audience that understands what freedom is. Becoming "civilized" has redefined freedom in such a way that being chained to a wall and robbed daily is considered free.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by budski

 

I dont think explanation is possible.

To explain how un-free we are you would need an audience that understands what freedom is. Becoming "civilized" has redefined freedom in such a way that being chained to a wall and robbed daily is considered free.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Fair enough, but my point about the constitution being subverted on a daily basis remains valid, which means it is meaningless except to those who cling to it as some kind of beacon of hope.

I have no issues with the document, or what it stands for - my argument is that it is now largely meaningless.

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by tiger5

 

Tiger5
The consitution (as I'm sure you are aware) was subverted on many levels at different times, but none more so than by the previous administration.

It means very little now, as it will always be argued about "Intent" and open to interpretation by those who seek to subvert it for their own ends.

Isn't the national guard the modern version of "militia"?

It's an interesting discussion as to what extent various parts of the constitution have been subverted, but at the end of the day, various amendments, bills, acts, laws, are all easily twisted by those who have a vested interest in doing so.

Lawyers and lobbyists - the bane of modern America, and if they want the constitution subverted they will find a way of doing so.

So really, the argument is moot, because America is run by corporations for corporations, and the citizenry are mere serfs, to do as they are told.

edit on 11/1/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)

I agree with you on the constitution. The lawyers got there first and have perverted everything. However I would rather be an armed serf than an unarmed serf. Some things should be beyond Left and right. How long has Adam Smith been dead? How long has Lenin been dead.

Everything is not based on old doctrines or ideology try to look at the bigger picture. After they get rid of the gunsters they will come for you.

If you saw someone drowning would you first ask their politics or chuck them a rope?

reply to post by tiger5


Armed or unarmed is pretty meaningless - try arguing your rights after the government/corporate stooges have shot you for defending your consitutional rights, as you or others see them.

It's not about politics, it's about a misguided, outmoded and outdated belief system (and yes the constitution is a belief system) which in reality is little more than a comfort blanket for those who don't care to see past their own nose.

Uh, excuse me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this guy focusing on the fact that people can purchase clips with 33 bullets in them? What difference does it make who buys them? I think there's a lot more problems with the world when the fact is this kind of stuff exists and is available to purchase by pretty much anyone. I mean it sounds like something SWAT teams or the military would use, and my guess is that's what the "intended" purpose for selling them was... then again I don't follow politics, the military, or guns and ammo so I'm kind of going out on a limb...

reply to post by Time2Think


The 33rd MAGAZINE (not a clip), is great for range use. It eliminates the need for multiple reloads.

Hell, I own a few of them, but dont use them for carry since the mag protrudes too much to make concealed carry possible.

Since you admitted you dont follow guns, or ammo, why would you feel qualified to state that no one should own them?

reply to post by GeneralAwesome


Because it's pretty ridiculous if people are "too lazy" to reload their gun while shooting at the range. It's just exploitation of another loop hole as far as I'm concerned, who even manufactures these magazines, are they even produced here in the United States? My guess is no.

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market,”

But instead of people listing good reasons why "these high-capacity clips (or magazines) " are on the market, people automatically twist what he's saying into "guns should be banned" That's my point.

reply to post by Time2Think


You would feel more comfortable with me taping two 15-round magazines together?

reply to post by Time2Think


Yet again you would be wrong.

FYI, Glock manufactures them.

It seems you are just frightened of something you are unfamiliar with.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

You have to admit though, if Laughner hadn't have had access to firearms then this incident would not have occurred.

Just saying.....

What does the impossible idea of eliminating access to guns have to do with anything? As long as there is a market for something it will be available legal or illegal. Anti-gun laws cannot prevent a nut case from doing what happened anymore then drug laws prevent people from getting drugs.