|
Jeza posted:So if I understand you, you really don't care too much about guns or gun control, but care instead about the sanctity of the constitution? Don't you think that the original intention behind the amendment has been completely lost? The "right to bear arms" is just an addendum to the importance of having a Militia, back when something like that could feasibly have overthrown a corrupt government. Not to mention the sheer technological constraints of single shot, muzzle loaded weapons means that they were legislating effectively for a completely different thing. Honestly, the sanctity of the constitution argument is the dumbest thing ever. If people really support the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of the sanctity of the constitution, then why don't the major proponents of this argument ever follow it to it's logical conclusion and support the ownership of Surface-to-Air missiles? Or ICBM's? They asked conservative "genius" Justice Scalia this exact question and he said that when the founders wrote "keep and bare arms" they really meant that you had to be able to pick up and carry the weapon in order for it to qualify for the 2nd amendment, which anyone with a brain and who is being intellectually honest knows is complete bullshit. They meant that you were not only allowed to own weapons but that you were also allowed to carry them on your person if you wanted to as well. So of course then Scalia was asked, provided that his childishly intellectually dishonest reading of the 2nd amendment was accepted, how he explains the rather obvious giant gaping loophole in his logic that allows people to own bazookas, hand grenades, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, and suitcase nukes, things which he obviously didn't support but were logically consistent with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment. His response was basically a shrug and a hand-wave that he would legislate it "very carefully". In other words he gave a total non-answer when his obvious hypocrisy and logical inconsistency was pointed out. And this is the guy who's supposed to be one of the smartest conservative gun advocates and best arguers on the planet.
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:i support it; sounds like a good plan. Haha, well if nothing else, it would resolve the issue, one way or the other, rather quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
That's pretty disingenuous, actually. Between the paper work, restrictions, certifications, fine print, taxes, and red tape there are so many barriers to getting those kinds of weapons that they're essentially de facto illegal, like a backdoor abortion ban. Granted a lot of people own and use explosives, but the permits almost always require it to be for commercial use demolitions like construction. Those permits aren't just handed out to any yokel that walks through the door. It's a hell of a lot easier to buy a hand gun than it is a rocket launcher. I'd be interested to hear the logical argument behind nukes being classed differently, it's just a bigger explosion. And that doesn't even get into biological weapons. I wish people would make intellectually honest arguments before "spouting off". -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 07:28
|
|