How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jun 22, 2014.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html?ml=po_r


    A history of how the NRA rewrote history.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    Better to have rights than perceived safety from banning firearms.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
     
  3. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #3
    I wondered how long it would take somebody to respond with how banning guns would be bad, as if the two options are "everyone has guns" and "nobody has guns". :\
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    nice fallacy right there. NO ONE is FORCING you to buy a gun, if you don't like them, don't buy them, simple as that. criminals don't care what you think THEY should do. your "laws" don't really affect them.
     
  5. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #5
    Nice fallacy there.

    According to that logic, we shouldn't have any laws. Somebody who is going to kill somebody is going to do it regardless of whether or not it's illegal according to that logic. Somebody who is going to rape? Same logic.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    laws & bans only affect the law abiding. we still have crime regardless of laws, you still don't own a gun no matter how legal it is. no one is FORCING you to buy a gun.
     
  7. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #7
    So why have any laws at all? Can you answer me that one, using the logic you have thrown out?
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    sure, not everyone is a criminal/psycho/deranged sociopath :D
     
  9. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #9
    Are you serious? Just want to make sure.
     
  10. chabig macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #10
    This is an indication of the writer's opinion on the subject. The Supreme Court isn't required to issue rulings to make things true. I'm sure they haven't ruled that gravitational attraction between two masses decreases as the inverse square of the distance, but it does. Likewise, the words of the. Second amendment were well understood by most for centuries, yet laws were being passed that trampled on that right and the court had to remind those who simply didn't get it.
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    are you a criminal/psycho/deranged sociopath? if not, am I not correct? Laws do not affect you as long as you don't break them, criminals don't care what the laws are. that is why we still have crime.
     
  12. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #12
    Thank you for saving me from having to state the obvious.
    Kind of sad it needed to be stated in the first place.
     
  13. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #13
    You're right. For centuries, it was understood that the Second Amendment wasn't a universal right. That's why even the NRA was in favor of gun control until the 1970's, when there was a coup and the gun lobby took over.

    I had hoped you were joking, yet sadly you aren't. It isn't that you had a logical fallacy, it's that you have a lack of understanding about how laws deter crime.
     
  14. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #14
    It's good that the author effectively tossed his entire work into the trash in the 3rd paragraph.

    Saves me a lot of time.
     
  15. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #15
    Laws do not prevent crime. Laws are for penalizing you after you break the law. If there were no laws then a murder would never be locked up to prevent him breaking that law again and again.
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    yeah, they only deter those who obey them. why is that so hard to understand?:confused:

    ----------

    thank you.
     
  17. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #17
    I never said it prevented crimes, but laws deter crimes.

    They deter people who don't want to go to jail for them. And that's a rather large list, really.
     
  18. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    it is good to have the RIGHT to bear arms for those who don't care about the laws, the more CHOICES the better off Law abiding citizens are.
     
  19. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #19
    And it's good to read the entire Second Amendment and realize that gun regulations are a part of it.
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    I have no problem with SOME regulations.
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    Again, the assumption here is that the 2A only applies to guns. In fact, with how the 2A is written, all guns could be completely banned, and the 2A could be left intact.

    the right to bear arms does not only mean guns; a thought oft forgotten by a lot of people.

    BL.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    guns ARE "arms", so no you can't ban gun based on that.
     
  23. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #23
    So even you're in favor of some gun control... just like everyone else. The only thing we disagree on is how much.
     
  24. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    Arms isn't defined, so the opposite congruent would also be true. In short, nothing there is mutually inclusive (read: all or nothing). Some things can be excluded, as the AWB showed us. That didn't infringe any more on the 2A than all guns being banned would.

    BL.
     
  25. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #25
    You have repeatedly tried to make this point, but it runs counter to virtually all contemporary definitions.

     

Share This Page