Gun Control & RKBA

beevul

(12,194 posts)

43. Fishing eh?

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 02:37 AM

Apr 2014

The 2A is a smoke screen for what guns and ammunition are really all about in our society.

To wit: Settling personal grievances, commencing crime, and lashing out toward those around us.

How can the second amendment be "about" the things you claim it is, when less than 1 percent of the population engage in those things?

Checkmate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1st Amendment protects speech involving 2nd Amendment [View all] Token Republican Mar 2014 OP

Let's hope the nice man doesn't become a not upaloopa Mar 2014 #1

... Boom Sound 416 Mar 2014 #3

Did you pull in a mudfish or an old shoe? One-A was violated... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #7

I read quickly through that opinion, and couldn't see where the gun nut was quoted directly. Loudly Mar 2014 #2

look more bigotry. SQUEE Mar 2014 #4

In the flesh... beevul Mar 2014 #35

Reading is fundamental Token Republican Mar 2014 #5

The ruling didn't strike down the clear and present danger provision in the FOID law. Loudly Mar 2014 #6

which there wasn't any evidence of that gejohnston Mar 2014 #8

Laws against the possession of child pornography are a limit on speech. Loudly Mar 2014 #10

that's not really speech gejohnston Mar 2014 #11

The jurisprudence describes it as unprotected speech. Loudly Mar 2014 #12

show me the case law gejohnston Mar 2014 #13

The leading case is also useful to argue potential harm from mere possession of guns and ammunition. Loudly Mar 2014 #28

But that's not what happened Token Republican Mar 2014 #15

They apparently skipped due process on grounds of exigent threat to public safety. Loudly Mar 2014 #19

Who's definition of exigent threat to public safety? uncommonlink Mar 2014 #20

here, let me help you out SQUEE Mar 2014 #21

There was no exigent circumstances, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #22

Free speech is not a pretend right Token Republican Mar 2014 #25

There can be no such thing as a "right" of access to the means of Loudly Mar 2014 #26

Sorry. SQUEE Mar 2014 #27

Loudly-getting it wrong as usual. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #29

58 years from Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed. Loudly Mar 2014 #31

200+ years of the 2A trumps your Dred Scott and Plessy to Brown v. Board of Ed. uncommonlink Mar 2014 #33

Kicking and screaming huh... beevul Mar 2014 #36

o.O Token Republican Mar 2014 #30

Its Constitutional purpose, now moot, was armed rebellion against the government. Loudly Mar 2014 #32

Yes, I agree you are 100% right Token Republican Mar 2014 #34

"Settled to the contrary for all time at Appomattox Courthouse Virginia in 1865." Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #37

Your reasoning seems circular to me. Or at best an excercise in perpetuating a faulty premise. Loudly Mar 2014 #38

"You want to argue the 2A in terms of its being successfully or unsuccessfully exercised" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #39

You will never initiate armed rebellion against the government. Loudly Mar 2014 #40

Mayhap with a faithful guarding of the 2A the need will never arise. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #41

In an earlier thread, I pointed out that only (roughly) 1 in 4000 rounds of ammunition are used for Jgarrick Mar 2014 #42

Fishing eh? beevul Apr 2014 #43

Correct me if I am wrong but those laws still require evidence. clffrdjk Mar 2014 #14

The opinion does not quote the gun nut directly, so how do you know? Loudly Mar 2014 #17

Either the cops wouldn't tell the judge what he said, uncommonlink Mar 2014 #18

I do believe you've got it! Token Republican Mar 2014 #23

Correct Token Republican Mar 2014 #24

This malarky again, huh? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #9

Shh Token Republican Mar 2014 #16