Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

They Hate Us for Our Freedom to Do This Shit

Comments Filter:
  • The fact that the character in that video has the so-called "right to have a firearm" really gives you something to think about.

    I'm pretty sure there were guys like that way back in the late 1700s (though they'd be a-hootin' and a-hollerin' on a horse instead of an ATv) and that's more evidence on the side of those who say the Founding Fathers did not intend the 2nd Amendment to indicate a "right" for individuals to own and carry handguns. I can see Franklin and Madison and Jefferson and Co. talking about

    • :-) Such a tempting little morsel there.. But I can't call it sport when it's that easy [youtube.com]... dig?

    • by dusanv (256645)

      That's the whole point of rights. They're applied non-selectively, to "knuckleheads" and others. That idiot isn't hurting anyone and is within his rights rights to do what he's doing. Plus it's free entertainment. You'd don't see that kind of stuff every day.

      • by rk (6314)

        I quote the comment I posted on the video itself:

        "...as a life-long defender of the right to keep and bear arms, and who only let my NRA membership lapse because I don't think the NRA goes far enough to defend the 2nd amendment, this tosswit has made the most compelling argument for gun control I've ever seen, assuming that those aren't blanks."

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        That's the whole point of rights. They're applied non-selectively, to "knuckleheads" and others.

        And that's my whole point: The Second Amendment does not confer a right to own a gun on everybody.

        Until around 1980, nobody, not even the most conservative judge, believed that the Second Amendment was meant to be an individual right. Not even Judge Robert Bork. It wasn't until the NRA and Atty Gen'l Meese that this theory of "individual right to have a gun" was advanced.

        • by Kymermosst (33885)

          And that's my whole point: The Second Amendment does not confer a right to own a gun on everybody.

          Exactly. Everyone who exists already has the right to own a gun. It does not need to be conferred.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            Everyone who exists already has the right to own a gun.

            That may be true, but not because of the U.S. Constitution.

            You have the right to participate in a militia (Robt Bork, Time Magazine Vol. 14, Issue 13). At least that's what Bork said the 2nd Amendment means.

            Are you suggesting you know better than the most conservativest, liberal-hatingest, rock-ribbed, neck-bearded Judge ever?

            • by Kymermosst (33885)

              I am not suggesting any such thing. I agree that it guarantees the right to participate in a militia. Of course, one cannot reasonably participate in a militia if one does not have the ability to possess arms...

              The main body of the Constitution is a document that is primarily concerned with taking rights away from individuals and transferring them to collective society as represented in the governmental structure.

              The authors really blew it with some of the particulars in the Bill of Rights, though. Now t

              • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

                The main body of the Constitution is a document that is primarily concerned

                I agree with what you say.

                Further, I believe that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is a highly overrated document when it comes to the "glue" which has held our country together. Some of the most beneficial events in our history are those where some extraordinary logic had to be applied to the words in the Constitution to come up with a sensible ruling. But of course, some of the least beneficial things that have been don

        • > Until around 1980, nobody, not even the most conservative judge, believed that the Second Amendment was meant to be an individual right.

          Likewise, until about then, nobody, not even the most liberal judge, believed the Second Amendment applied only to militias.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            Likewise, until about then, nobody, not even the most liberal judge, believed the Second Amendment applied only to militias.

            What would make you think that? Since I mentioned Judge Bork, the St Paul of Conservatives, he claimed that the second Amendment applied only to a citizen's right to participate in a militia as early as the late 60's.

            But we seem to agree that it does not apply to an individual's right to pack heat. That's important.

            You find restrictive local gun laws as early as the first decade of th

            • Regardless what the 2nd amendment says, you do know what would (did) happen to any militia that dares to challenge the authority of the federal government, no matter how well regulated it is, right? The 2nd amendment is as toothless as the 4th.. and the 1st.. in fact, damn near all of them.. It's all just lawyer fodder.

              • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

                The 2nd amendment is as toothless as the 4th..

                This is an argument for my belief that it is not the Constitution that has kept the United States going for 200+ years, but rather a certain critical level of reasonable people who work to keep us from going off a cliff. Often, they've been justices on the Supreme Court, who quite reasonably stretch the meaning of the words in the Constitution to fit the needs of society at various points in our history. Forty years of sabotage from the Right has taken its to

                • The constitution does two things. It sets up the parliamentary rules of governance, and possibly more importantly, it declares that the federal government is unassailable. It literally prohibits any effective defiance.. It is actually in direct opposition to the declaration of independence

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.

Working...