|
Liquid Communism posted:I hear the killer breathed air, and drank water, too. Yes, actually. Powercrazy posted:I think a more realistic scenario would be him blaming your posting, but I don't see the first amendment going anywhere either. Well at least you're up front that you don't care about children being murdered.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
The percentage of people who own guns has steadily decreased, concentrating more and more guns in fewer and fewer, increasingly radicalized hands. It sure is a good thing gun owners are so fat and cowardly they'll only be murdering us at random, rather than in any organized fashion.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
I believe individual's are responsible for their actions. Sorry that is a scary concept to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I believe individual's are responsible for their actions. Sorry that is a scary concept to you. It's more concerning than scary that you see nothing wrong with enabling murderers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I believe individual's are responsible for their actions. Sorry that is a scary concept to you. Ah, a wholesale rejection of the insanity defense, as well as the existence of structural discrimination. Mothershitting epic.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I hear the killer breathed air, and drank water, too. This is an absurd non sequitur! What is not a non sequitur is that today, some 80 people died because of guns. FYI, there have been a couple shootings on street corners, a bunch of suicides with guns, some cops shooting at people, and a few gun-related accidents resulting in death today. Each of these events is an individual reason to overturn DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and institute stringent gun control focusing on handguns, through buyback programs, licensing for guns and owners, and mandatory shooting practice and psychological testing for those who wish against all odds to actually own and keep guns. It is reasonable to believe that within 30 years or so your country will be back to normal if steps are taken today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:This is an absurd non sequitur! Not really. Total free will is a lie, meaning that we are products of our environment and our environment bears some manner of responsibility for our actions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's more concerning than scary that you see nothing wrong with enabling murderers. He is enabling murders about as much as you are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ah, a wholesale rejection of the insanity defense, as well as the existence of structural discrimination. Mothershitting epic. That's an absolutist way of reading that, which surprise, leads to an absurd conclusion with no room for nuance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:54
|
|
Powercrazy posted:That's an absolutist way of reading that, which surprise, leads to an absurd conclusion with no room for nuance. Idiotic, smarmy statements don't actually deserve to be treated as though there was any thought put into them, so as to save their speakers embarrassment.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You support restricting rights all the time. Rights are not something you intrinsically have, they are given to you by society and enforced by the state, and they can stop giving them to you at any time as well, such as when someone is incarcerated. And unless you're some sort of libertarian anarchist you support this. So your argument of "b-b-b-b-but you're taking away my rights" is just fallacious emotional scaremongering, and a tactic that was used by slave holders during the Civil War no less. The question isn't and has never been "Should this right be taken away" it's "should this right be given". So why should we give you the right to own a gun?  I guess it's time for Civics 101, so buckle up.Rights pretty much are inherent. If I was the last person on earth, I could drive as fast as I want, do drugs, and say what I wanted. People can do what they wish unless constrained by outside forces. Ever since we've organized ourselves into groups larger than hunter-gatherer bands, governments have constrained the rights of their citizens or reserved certain rights for the ruling class, usually on the basis of things like "the God-King commands it." The enlightenment values that informed the American Revolution held that certain fundamental rights belonged inherently to all people, and could not justly be taken away. The proper role of government is not to allow a king or ruling class to decide what they deign to allow their subjects to do, but to safeguard the rights of citizens from those who would take them away: The Declaration of Independence posted:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed When, after some discussion, it was decided to amend the Constitution with a list of rights considered especially important, the final amendment stated: The Tenth Amendment posted:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So no, you spineless snot, our rights to personal safety, to speak freely, worship as we want, to secure ourselves against unreasonable intrusion, were not something the government deigned to give us. We've always had them, and have no need to justify them to anyone. Rather, it is expected that those who would restrict our liberties would have to justify themselves to us. You should be embarrassed for articulating such a cravenly authoritarian idea of government. If you think we shouldn't have guns, you have to justify it, and a simple utility argument isn't going to cut it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
The Declaration of Independance names only three rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does say "among others", but there's no reason to believe that these are the same rights that you find in the Constitution. Okay, life and liberty are mentioned in the 5th Amendment. The pursuit of happiness has mysteriously vanished and is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. So, you know, basic rights and all, they're not consistent from one document to the next. There's no right to personal safety either in the Constitution, and gun ownership does not constitute personal safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:There's no right to personal safety quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Yes, those are things you could do, but they wouldn't be rights because, as I said, rights come from society. quote:People can do what they wish unless constrained by outside forces. Ever since we've organized ourselves into groups larger than hunter-gatherer bands, governments have constrained the rights of their citizens or reserved certain rights for the ruling class, usually on the basis of things like "the God-King commands it." I don't give a singular, solitary gently caress about the Declaration of Independence because it's not a legally binding document. Also, people in the past had outdated ideas, who'da fuckin' thunk it. quote:When, after some discussion, it was decided to amend the Constitution with a list of rights considered especially important, the final amendment stated: Yes, the Tenth Amendment gives those rights to the states and to the people. Thank you for making my point for me. quote:The government is strictly limited to those rights its citizens choose to entrust in it. Thanks to the concept of judicial review, the courts can examine acts of government to determine if they're unduly infringing on our rights. Even below the strict scrutiny applied to infringements on our most significant rights, the government is expected to articulate a rational basis for regulation. The government is self-limited, and it can be changed. It's not impossible although according to you it should be. quote:So no, you spineless snot, our rights to personal safety, to speak freely, worship as we want, to secure ourselves against unreasonable intrusion, were not something the government deigned to give us. Yes, they are. In fact they're specifically given to you in the first amendment. Listen, if these rights were so loving self-evident why even list them at all? Why not just say "you have all your natural rights, 100% rights all the time, great job!". quote:We've always had them, and have no need to justify them to anyone. No, we didn't, and we in fact did have to justify them to the British. It was just a little obscure spat between us and them but you might have heard of it, it was called The American Revolution. quote:Rather, it is expected that those who would restrict our liberties would have to justify themselves to us. You should be embarrassed for articulating such a cravenly authoritarian idea of government. So you don't support any law or regulation at all for being "cravenly authoritarian"? You're a pure anarchist? Somehow I doubt that. quote:If you think we shouldn't have guns, you have to justify it, and a simple utility argument isn't going to cut it. Nope, you got it backwards. 2/10, please stay after class
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The percentage of people who own guns has steadily decreased, concentrating more and more guns in fewer and fewer, increasingly radicalized hands. It sure is a good thing gun owners are so fat and cowardly they'll only be murdering us at random, rather than in any organized fashion. You know who else claimed to be the majority? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Nope. The actual 4th Amendment posted:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Look at this guy who doesn't know what the word "seizure" means in context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
The US Constitution is very open to interpretation, and if not you can ignore clauses all you want until it fits what you want it to mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Look at this guy who doesn't know what the word "seizure" means in context. Do you mean this context? quote:the persons or things to be seized. Sounds to me like it applies to people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Look at this guy who doesn't know what the word "seizure" means in context. It's okay, man. I'm sure he has no idea what the root of habeus corpus is either. Ddraig posted:The US Constitution is very open to interpretation, and if not you can ignore clauses all you want until it fits what you want it to mean. Which is why we have a Supreme Court that rules on the application of laws... and who have repeatedly and consistently ruled in favor of the private ownership of firearms. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Look at this guy who doesn't know what the word "seizure" means in context. Please enlighten me as to how personal safety has anything to do with "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, [...] against unreasonable [...] seizures" Because I'm completely clueless here
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
This one is good too.quote:All people are by nature free and independent and have Flowers For Algeria posted:Please enlighten me as to how personal safety has anything to do with "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, [...] against unreasonable [...] seizures" The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects you from the government fuckin' you or your poo poo up without good reason. The courts have found that, in most cases, fuckin' you up counts as a "seizure", but I can understand how that bit of legalese would escape a non-American poster. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, those are things you could do, but they wouldn't be rights because, as I said, rights come from society. You don't understand what the word "reserved" means, especially in this context. Check the 9th Amendment: quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I don't support any regulation that lacks a consistent rational basis, and I don't accept any regulation that infringes on our basic rights that isn't driven by a compelling interest, narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive option available. If you truly believe that rights are nothing more than what the state deigns to allow its citizens to do, then there is no basis for criticizing the governments of North Korea and Eritrea. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Which is why we have a Supreme Court that rules on the application of laws... and who have repeatedly and consistently ruled in favor of the private ownership of firearms. You know that the only reason why they have is because of tribalism
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You know that the only reason why they have is because of tribalism
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Please enlighten me as to how personal safety has anything to do with "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, [...] against unreasonable [...] seizures" The end of the amendment literally talks about "the persons or things to be seized." You quoted it. The whole history of 4th amendment jurisprudence is based on the idea that detaining or imprisoning a person is a "seizure."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's okay, man. I'm sure he has no idea what the root of habeus corpus is either. Yes, and if a new case came up and overturned those, guess what, you wouldn't have the right to own firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, and if a new case came up and overturned those, guess what, you wouldn't have the right to own firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The end of the amendment literally talks about "the persons or things to be seized." You quoted it. The whole history of 4th amendment jurisprudence is based on the idea that detaining or imprisoning a person is a "seizure." I still don't see it man. That's not personal safety, it's protection against the government detaining you Personal safety is a lot more vast than this dude. Don't tell me you feel safe only because you know that cops won't illegally detain you, that's absurd Rent-A-Cop posted:Now celebrating 239 years of tribalism. You know what I mean It's politics
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you truly believe that rights are nothing more than what the state deigns to allow its citizens to do, then there is no basis for criticizing the governments of North Korea and Eritrea. Of course we can, on a moral basis, as we always have. Also, I'm very sorry you don't actually know what rights are but I've been feeling poo poo and so I don't actually care and I'm not going to give you an effort post explaining it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Congratulations, you've passed 5th grade civics. Now if only Dead Reckoning had, because he thinks that rights are magical powers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I still don't see it man. That's not personal safety, it's protection against the government detaining you If you're unfamiliar with the US Constitution, it exists to delineate the powers of the US government. It would be rather odd if it contained a blanket guarantee of safety from all the evils of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Now if only Dead Reckoning had, because he thinks that rights are magical powers. It does say, right there in the Declaration of Independance, that they are granted by God, therefore they must be magical in some way
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Or you know, shooting you. I'm not the one claiming it contains provisions ensuring personal safety, or that it enshrines it as a right
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The end of the amendment literally talks about "the persons or things to be seized." You quoted it. The whole history of 4th amendment jurisprudence is based on the idea that detaining or imprisoning a person is a "seizure." So when a cop is shot by a black person it's actually the black person exercising his rights to not be seized? Cool, guess that has solved the huge problem of black people being indiscriminately shot by the police, they are constitutionally allowed to shoot back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I still don't see it man. That's not personal safety, it's protection against the government detaining you Flowers For Algeria posted:I'm not the one claiming it contains provisions ensuring personal safety, or that it enshrines it as a right Who What Now posted:Of course we can, on a moral basis, as we always have. Ddraig posted:So when a cop is shot by a black person it's actually the black person exercising his rights to not be seized? Cool, guess that has solved the huge problem of black people being indiscriminately shot by the police, they are constitutionally allowed to shoot back. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:The Declaration of Independance names only three rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does say "among others", but there's no reason to believe that these are the same rights that you find in the Constitution. Okay, life and liberty are mentioned in the 5th Amendment. The pursuit of happiness has mysteriously vanished and is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. So, you know, basic rights and all, they're not consistent from one document to the next. Sorry there isn't a list of all things one is able to do. You sperglord.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I'm not the one claiming it contains provisions ensuring personal safety, or that it enshrines it as a right
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So you think rights are something granted by the government... but that governments can universally be criticized if they infringe or fail to guarantee certain rights. Almost as if certain rights are inherent, beyond government. Do... Do you not understand the difference between rights and morals?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Sorry there isn't a list of all things one is able to do. You sperglord. Actually, there is. It's called the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:03
|
|