Why are cable news hosts morons when it comes to guns?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Aug 6, 2019.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Seriously this is embarrassing.

    [​IMG]

    And of course she gets tons of replies like underage drinking, pot, speeding etc. When it comes to guns people get stupid. No where in the constitution are any of these things mentioned. Yet the right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd amendment! Whatever ones feelings on guns you can’t pretend the 2A doesn’t exist. Believe me if the White House or members of Congress were proposing reducing free speech to combat this problem the media would be all over that in a heartbeat. If the media and the Left really want to restrict gun ownership then they should amend the constitution, not pass laws that violate the 2A.
     
  2. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    The only genuinely embarrassing thing you posted is the quote from my old college classmate, Pat Toomey.

    The Second Amendment has never meant completely unfettered and unregulated rights to bear whatever types of firearms you choose. Congress has a role in deciding the scope of that regulation, and the Supreme Court has recognized their ability to do so (within recently shrinking limits).
     
  3. Crowbot macrumors 6502

    Crowbot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    OK, they can be fools sometimes.

    But let me ask something that is often not mentioned. The 2nd A says that "the people" can bear arms but it references a "well regulated militia". I never hear gun fanciers talk about that. The point being that we can own guns but we need to be part of an organized militia so it's not neighbors shooting at each other.
     
  4. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #4
    If we had the internet and high powered sniper rifles 250 years ago I guaran-****ing-tee the founding fathers wouldn’t have put everybody gets a gun in the constitution.
     
  5. Joe h macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    #5
    Everyone has the right to possess a gun, and the government must have a standing army. Not that hard to understand.
     
  6. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #6
    Says who?
    --- Post Merged, Aug 6, 2019 ---
    So amend the constitution then.
     
  7. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
  8. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #8
    "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."

    and as Neal de Grasse Tyson oh so helpfully points out, few is the operative term

    "In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings. On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors 300 to the Flu 250 to Suicide 200 to Car Accidents 40 to Homicide via Handgun Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data."

    We must stops thinking of Lady Liberty as a lightbringer. Instead, we should look to the ancient texts.

    "For the demon shall bear a nine-bladed sword. Nine-bladed! Not two or five or seven, but nine, which she will wield on all wretched sinners, sinners just like you, sir, there,..."
     
  9. Crowbot macrumors 6502

    Crowbot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Location:
    NYC
    #9
    But most people aren't in the standing army. It does imply training and coordination. Why did they bother to put in the militia part if they just meant that anyone should have a gun.
     
  10. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    Think they would have put freedom of speech if they knew the internet which hosts porn, bomb making instructions, beheading videos, etc.?
     
  11. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #11
    People get this part wrong a lot of times, too.

    The standing army is not a militia. In the context of the Constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was seen as critical for the ability of the state (meaning a political entity) to be able to raise a militia. The ability to raise a militia was seen as necessary to the security of a free state.

    It's been well-established that the colonists had just fought a war against an oppressive government- they were not free in their eyes. In order to secure their freedom, they would need a militia to maintain their security against their oppressors. If the people were not able to keep and bear arms, they could not raise an effective militia - they would fail to maintain their security or their freedom.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    perfect way to start the next American revolution
    --- Post Merged, Aug 6, 2019 ---
    no need for militia, the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    The internet is what would have made direct democracy possible. Kill the internet, and you destroy the balance between the 800 states, and the 9 branches of government.
     
  14. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    But context is a bitch.

    The Founding Fathers did not believe in a standing army. So look a the context. We just fought a war. We may have to fight more wars. We don't want a standing army. So let's make sure everybody has the right to keep a musket so that if we ever have to muster an army, they will come equipped.

    Today, it's a bit different. we have an enormous standing army. We have the National Guards. We have regular reserve forces. we have well stocked armories. The original reason no longer exists.
     
  15. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #15
    The precedent has been established and stands.
    The answer is a absolute YES, Congress can Constitutionally place limits on firearms
     
  16. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #16
    Trump could sign an executive order tomorrow to resolve this gun problem. Politicians are cowards.
     
  17. Crowbot macrumors 6502

    Crowbot

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Location:
    NYC
    #17
    OK, maybe I got that analogy wrong but the thrust is that even the militia should be organized and trained. Look at the Israeli army. They have a regular standing army (kids 18-20) plus people serve in the reserves (I know, not a militia but similar) and train a few times a year. But they wouldn't just take in any yob off the street with an assault rifle. So if people want guns the least we should do is make sure they know how to use them.
     
  18. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #18
    and because we have an enormous standing army, the balance of powers tilts toward the president in ways that would have shocked Jay, Hamilton and Madison.
     
  19. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    Well, Antonin Scalia, for one. I think his majority opinion in Heller went too far, but even he recognized there that teh Second Amendment has limits:

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.””
     
  20. lostngone, Aug 6, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019

    lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #20
    It isn't unfettered or unregulated we have a LOT of firearms laws on the books at multiple levels... Starting at the federal level, then state, then county/borough all the way down to the city. The thing is, people say there isn't any reason for a citizen you own a "military style" rifle however that is exactly what the Second Amendment was trying to guarantee. It didn't say "lesser Arms", "Arms less powerful than X" or "Arms only for hunting".
     
  21. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
    Well the internet has it’s negatives and can be very dangerous. The internet needs to be highly restricted to citizens but not the government.
     
  22. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #22
    sarcasm noted.

    I think it would be wise to wait until 2020 to comment more broadly on the role of the internet on human society-- there is a very slim chance that good lessons will be learnt in the wake of Hong Kong.

    I remember the early utopianism associated with the early days of the world wide web. There was certain expectation that anyone could run their own server, from their home. Nowadays, even coding a personal blog that incorporates javascript is sort of frowned upon.
     
  23. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #23
    We probably would if it was up to vote for every American citizen instead of a handful of corrupt politicians or a single person like Mitch McConnell who is clearly gunning to be the recipient of this year's Dick Cheney Evil Empire Lifetime Achievement award.
     
  24. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #24
    Which firearms are prohibited/illegal under the N.F.A.? Also couldn’t one argue it’s unconstitutional because it is exceeds congresses authority under the commerce clause?
     
  25. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #25
    Clearly, the constitution is a suicide pact.
     

Share This Page

62 August 6, 2019