"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: I see no reason to infringe your right to muzzle-loading flintlocks and maybe, just maybe, a small sword if you promise not to cut yourself with it. Gunpowder and lead balls are another matter and are not covered by the 2nd Ammendment. How are they not exactly?

How are they inexactly?

You cannot stop crazy people with guns with legislation, you need thorazine for that.

akamaisondufromage wrote: So you should have the right to bear whatever gun or flamethrower you so want ?

Actually, you can already own a flamethrower.

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Regardless - the second amendment has never meant "the government can't keep you from getting whatever the hell damn fool thing you want." The second amendment actually says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." (And that's passive voice, which implies by anyone). Infringe - "Act so as to limit or undermine (something)." Ok, let's go back to your quote about the interpretation of the militia being everyone, and then let's go to the Constitution itself, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, which says that Congress shall have the power: The Friggin' Constitution of the United Friggin' States wrote: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress Boy, sounds to me like if we're the Militia, that means that Congress has no power to decide anything about how we get and use our guns, huh?  No, wait...it doesn't sound like that at all, does it.

Also note that if we are all the militia that the 2nd amendment talks about, then we have to be the WELL REGULATED militia....

dtguitarfan wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Regardless - the second amendment has never meant "the government can't keep you from getting whatever the hell damn fool thing you want." The second amendment actually says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." (And that's passive voice, which implies by anyone). Infringe - "Act so as to limit or undermine (something)." Ok, let's go back to your quote about the interpretation of the militia being everyone, and then let's go to the Constitution itself, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, which says that Congress shall have the power: The Friggin' Constitution of the United Friggin' States wrote: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress Boy, sounds to me like if we're the Militia, that means that Congress has no power to decide anything about how we get and use our guns, huh?  No, wait...it doesn't sound like that at all, does it. Also note that if we are all the militia that the 2nd amendment talks about, then we have to be the WELL REGULATED militia....

From George Washington:

George Washington wrote: I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

In this context, would George Washington conceivably recommend people who have been denied certain classes of weaponry?

No.  "Well regulated" does not mean "well restricted."  It means "properly disciplined" in the context of the time.


Edited by Epignosis - January 17 2013 at 19:09

Oh yeah, all those freaking the f**k out about how all guns were gunna be banned were just being paranoid and quite irrational.
A friend of mine was posting 20 things a day on his FB about it....then it turned out the Obama ideas were generally in line with the NRA. THIS is what gives libertarians a bad name (and how they live in a cult of the rich) but yeah...gotta stop flying off the handle and spouting anger constantly, there's so many great arguments in our favor...just be calm and think. Even if it's the heart of your belief (and while I DO agree with the notion behind it) I also wish a rights/stats based argument against gun control was used, instead of the whole "we need em to protect ourselves from the government!" again, not that I disagree but it comes off a lil nutty and turns people off.

Oh yeah. I can have all the automatics I want...can't stop a tank


I just think some of the ways the libertarian movement behaves is a bit counter productive is all, and while I am as opinionated and willing to speak it as anyone, maybe you don't always have to! At least don't always have to be so in your face about it. The gun issue is one. Even when I agree with someone, its a turn off when I see some of the stuff said.
You hit on a good point, it is 2013...doesn't make the Constitution invalid but ya know, a more nuanced look and argument is needed. That said, beyond a few basics federal gun laws are pretty pointless and reforming drug laws and getting stronger money and economy would help crime far better.


Edited by JJLehto - January 17 2013 at 20:00

. Though in Monopoly the players aren't really affected at all when that happens 

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: I see no reason to infringe your right to muzzle-loading flintlocks and maybe, just maybe, a small sword if you promise not to cut yourself with it. Gunpowder and lead balls are another matter and are not covered by the 2nd Ammendment. How are they not exactly? How are they inexactly?

Are you being pithy and asking me to explain the Constitution or being pithy for pithy's sake?

Agreed 100% and that last argument is one, sadly, you never seem to hear.
Not that it matters, we're lazy asses, why try changing the constitution??
Anywho, just saying different techniques need to be used, and not always the protection from government thing. Most Americans, even here in liberal, upper middle class central NJ, don't wanna ban guns or such extreme measures. But it's still a turn off to hear ya know?