Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

reply to post by kaylaluv

now you are sounding like a grade-schooler.

I didn't say that words couldn't hurt.

nor did i say you did.
you did say that words cannot kill and you've already been proven wrong.

And there are statements that you cannot make without consequences.

really ??
and just how many times has Obama been held to the flame for his inflammatory remarks ?

But a word does not tear into flesh.

uh, so ??

The original argument was for the government requiring a background check to speak.

actually it isn't but we've already discussed that, so, what's your point here ?

Not the same as requiring a background check for a gun.

do you need a background check to buy a hammer ? how 'bout an axe ? maybe just a screwdriver ? knives ?? a car ??
if none of the above, then what makes 'guns' so special ??

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are 270 million guns in this country

exactly how has anyone been denied the ability to bear arms ?

Well they are working on that. They have to get by the "shall not be infringed" part first.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

You are doing it again. There are many many that own assault weapons that dont hoard, drink, hate the government, or any other tag you would like to put on them.

I am not the one tying those things together, I was talking about fear. I somehow feel that you are projecting into my words your own thoughts, fears and ideas. There was nothing in my second post about drinking or hating the government.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Again, not talking about banning ALL guns - just the ones that are the easiest to use to kill lots of people in seconds.

Why? Adam Lanza executed the Sandy Hook shooting with handguns.

I thought the point of all of this outrage was because of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.

The semi-auto AR15 was found in his trunk and wasn't used in the shooting. He used the semi-auto handguns to kill people.

From my understanding (and I have may liberal friends that say the same thing) the gun control logic is that we don't need guns that can rapid fire and kill many people at once when the fact of the matter is death by fully auto machine guns are extremely low and death by even semi-auto rifles are low as well. The bulk of death by guns are by handgun and the large majority of them are gang related and committed by criminals who get their guns illegally anyway (it makes sense because they have absolutely no respect for the law).

So why pursue the argument of banning automatic and semi-automatic rifles when they aren't even the problem?

If your goal is to save people from guns that have potential to be dangerous then logic dictates that you would want to ban ALL guns or at the very least get to the root of the problem to actually make a dent in the 'death by gun' rate.

So let's say full auto and semi-autos were completely gone tomorrow and the decrease in gun death rate is miniscule at best, would you then support a push to ban ALL guns, to get a better desired result in death rate? I know you said you supported the second amendment to bear arms but I don't know, some people change their mind in an instant when they don't get their desired result. I don't know how you would act in that situation, so I'm asking...for clarification.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

you are speaking with one, what's your point with this hyperbole ?

I am not anti gun or particularly in favor of more regulation.

so, stand firm in your opinion.

about a gun grab that is non-existent.

more propaganda ?? what is the point of such a comment ?
we, who have read the proposed legislation, know differently.

No where in Obama's 23 executive orders is there anything demanding that guns and ammo be turned in or confiscated.

Obama hasn't issued any EOs on the issue
Executive Actions are suggestions, nothing more, yet.

It is time for rational thought and discussion

we are so far beyond that, it is hysterically comical to read such a reference

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Noinden

 

Was that a response to me?

I am not the one that called him a socialist. The OP did...

I was musing on the OP accusing Dennis of being one. Although you and I probably disagree greatly in terms of political theory.... I wasn't calling Dennis a socialist.

I was agreeing with you. We might disagree. But not on this.

Oh and as for the constitution ... yeah it does guarantee the right, however it does not state the type of firearm. when it was written, civilian arms were equal to military ones. Now?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

you are speaking with one, what's your point with this hyperbole ?

I am not anti gun or particularly in favor of more regulation.

so, stand firm in your opinion.

about a gun grab that is non-existent.

more propaganda ?? what is the point of such a comment ?
we, who have read the proposed legislation, know differently.

No where in Obama's 23 executive orders is there anything demanding that guns and ammo be turned in or confiscated.

Obama hasn't issued any EOs on the issue

Executive Actions are suggestions, nothing more, yet.

It is time for rational thought and discussion

we are so far beyond that, it is hysterically comical to read such a reference

It is nice to see that you are a Glen Beck fan, and effectively edit my comments to make your point. I am not your enemy, and while our thoughts may not be the same, they are not incompatible unless you choose to make them so. The hardcore gun lobby is not in anyway winning the hearts of the American people, in fact many of the hardcore gun lobby are driving those, that might support a great deal of their agenda, into silence, or worse yet, to the other side. As I have said many times, I do not see the world in black and white, I see it in a continuum of gray, no one is 100% right all of the time.

I think it's very important to understand that the U.S. is not like Canada or Sweden.
There are not as much special interest groups as there are in the U.S.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.

I guarantee that's exactly what Kucinich was referring to..

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You can't kill someone with words

oh but you can and it's happened sooooo very much that certain "words" carry a penalty for mere utterance.

propaganda IS words and has killed more than any gun ever

Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word.

Jump... do it... just jump already. JUMP, JUMP, JUMP... Yes words have killed before.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

hahahaha, and if they didn't, these children would likely still be alive today.
children verbally bullied to death
and so many more.

yet, how many of the abusers were prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment right to say or do such abusive things ??

I didn't say that words couldn't hurt. And there are statements that you cannot make without consequences. But a word does not tear into flesh. The original argument was for the government requiring a background check to speak. Not the same as requiring a background check for a gun.

A simple order by a despot, "kill them" has proven deadly to millions throughout history. Yes words can kill.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are 270 million guns in this country

exactly how has anyone been denied the ability to bear arms ?

Well they are working on that. They have to get by the "shall not be infringed" part first.

Not saying they're going to do any of these things, but much could be accomplished just using their influence and control over commerce. Already there was a bit of a brouhaha about BoA denying guns or ammo purchases using credit or debit cards. That was denied by the bank, of course, but the possibility certainly exists.

There's also the potential for banks to simply shut down the accounts of gun dealers, as well as insurance companies jacking their liability ins. high enough to put them out of business. Not to mention many gun dealers lease their store fronts so landlords could be pressured to raise their rent, as well.

Not mention the ever tightening application hoops one must jump through for an approval.

Just speculating on possible back door break ins. .

Of course he is right, the Amendment is not about anything but the right of the people to overthrow a criminal, corrupt, useless government. The Amendment was designed to resist tyrants. To hell with tyrants.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Another person who doesn't understand what the constitution means.

1. Is it constitutional for a human being to bear arms against another human being?

2. If it is then it is constitutional to kill another human being.

Of course this is not surprising since Justice in this world is riddled with religious overtones.

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Another person who doesn't understand what the constitution means.

1. Is it constitutional for a human being to bear arms against another human being?

2. If it is then it is constitutional to kill another human being.

Of course this is not surprising since Justice in this world is riddled with religious overtones.

And another that doesn't understand that their interpretation is non-sequitor.

It is Constitutional for a citizen to keep and bear arms to fulfill the Natural Right of self-defense and to secure a nation under threat; not to arbitrarily use against other citizens -- we do have laws and only the State has used your logic to kill.

Therefore, your 'A means this, so B must be true "logic"' is poor and contrived to fit your narrative. Brush up on your Socrates.

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Another person who doesn't understand what the constitution means.

1. Is it constitutional for a human being to bear arms against another human being?

2. If it is then it is constitutional to kill another human being.

Of course this is not surprising since Justice in this world is riddled with religious overtones.

Honestly, those couple of questions are a little ridiculous to be asking, its almost rhetorical.

Nowhere in the Constitution (which is based on the rule of law) does it advocate murder of innocent people. However we all have the right to self defense, we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, if we're talking about deposing dictators, it isn't just something you DO by telling others its a good idea. Nobody (except criminals) WANTS to go out there and overthrow tyrannical regimes and be aggressive. When the time comes, it will come, it won't be because its the cool thing to do, it will be because its the right thing to do and that the time is the right time when everybody realizes it. It might even be possible that by the time people realize it, it will be too late, like the case in Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Nowhere in the Constitution (which is based on the rule of law) does it advocate murder of innocent people. However we all have the right to self defense, we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You are echoing my point about Justice that it is okay to murder those who are not innocent. Moreover, Justice even advocates collateral ( of innocents) as long as the end justifies the means.

The idea that words kill is nonsense to me.

Why is it the words that killed and not the susceptibility of that persons mind and lack of will to live?

I find it very interesting that the same people here

that say it's not guns that kill but people that kill (which I agree) are touting it's words that kill and not the person that committed suicide. Ultimately it's the fault of the person with the intention of ending life.

Sorry if I sound callous, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

How can a car ... be utilized for mass murder?

....

.

No reason to ask that... they killed over 30,000 people last year without even trying to be used for mass murder!

reply to post by NickK3


Absent the willful intention it is no longer murder by definition.