Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 11:54
    YouTube

    It's from Cracked. No, i don't give a fuk if you watch it or not.
    A few highlights:
    - The right loves to misinterpret the second amendment, leaving out that "well regulated militia" tidbit (that was so unimportant that the founders twisted the phrase into an awkward pretzel just to have "well regulated militia" at the start of the amendment)
    - Nowhere is there a mention of an individual "right" to own guns for personal protection or recreation. That only came to be with the lovely Scalia (200 years after the second amendment was created)
    - The Lowder Crowder chap likens David Hogg to Hitler because of course.
    - Bullies aren't the teens with practically 0 political power pressuring the elected officials to enact laws that might keep them alive. The bullies are the politicians and tv anchors backed by NRA's millions of dollars.
  2. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55380
    10 Apr '18 12:08
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFYiD8NfrMI

    It's from Cracked. No, i don't give a fuk if you watch it or not.
    A few highlights:
    - The right loves to misinterpret the second amendment, leaving out that "well regulated militia" tidbit (that was so unimportant that the founders twisted the phrase into an awkward pretzel just to have "well regulated mili ...[text shortened]... them alive. The bullies are the politicians and tv anchors backed by NRA's millions of dollars.
    I honestly believe that society would be better if individuals were not permitted to own guns but the Second Amendment doesn't say what you believe it does.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    10 Apr '18 12:47
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    I honestly believe that society would be better if individuals were not permitted to own guns but the Second Amendment doesn't say what you believe it does.
    Does it say what YOU believe it does? Why isn’t this true for everyone?

    We are not on a level playing field WRT what it (the second amendment) says. It says what the most money says it says.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 12:52
    Originally posted by @js357
    Does it say what YOU believe it does? Why isn’t this true for everyone?

    We are not on a level playing field WRT what it (the second amendment) says. It says what the most money says it says.
    i would clarify that the second amendment is interpreted as what the peeps with the most money want. It has always been clear what it actually says. The NRA knows what it says. Historians, linguists know what it says. Anyone who doesn't start reading sentences from the middle knows what it says.
  5. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55380
    10 Apr '18 13:14
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    i would clarify that the second amendment is interpreted as what the peeps with the most money want. It has always been clear what it actually says. The NRA knows what it says. Historians, linguists know what it says. Anyone who doesn't start reading sentences from the middle knows what it says.
    The Bill of Rights specifically gave individuals rights. It is far less of a stretch to say that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms then it is to say that the Constitution contemplates other rights such as the right to an Abortion. I can see this even if I would rather live in a society where people do not have guns and people have a right to abortion. This has nothing to do with money or the stupid comedians you seem to get your news from.
  6. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65525
    10 Apr '18 13:18
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFYiD8NfrMI

    It's from Cracked. No, i don't give a fuk if you watch it or not.
    A few highlights:
    - The right loves to misinterpret the second amendment, leaving out that "well regulated militia" tidbit (that was so unimportant that the founders twisted the phrase into an awkward pretzel just to have "well regulated mili ...[text shortened]... them alive. The bullies are the politicians and tv anchors backed by NRA's millions of dollars.
    I didn't watch it.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 14:40
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    The Bill of Rights specifically gave individuals rights. It is far less of a stretch to say that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms then it is to say that the Constitution contemplates other rights such as the right to an Abortion. I can see this even if I would rather live in a society where people do not have guns and peo ...[text shortened]... tion. This has nothing to do with money or the stupid comedians you seem to get your news from.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  8. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55380
    10 Apr '18 14:46
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    The Bill of Rights are a list of rights that remain with individuals. The interpretation that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means that people may keep Arms does not seem like a stretch to me even if I'm not looking to give individuals that right.
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 14:48
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    The Bill of Rights are a list of rights that remain with individuals. The interpretation that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means that people may keep Arms does not seem like a stretch to me even if I'm not looking to give individuals that right.
    "does not seem like a stretch to me"
    That's because you don't understand how words in a sentence work. You can't just remove what you don't like until it says what you want it to say.
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 14:53
    "Provided it is absolutely necessary to defend one's own life, one has the right to kill another person" in your eyes is equivalent to "One has the right to kill another person"
  11. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55380
    10 Apr '18 15:07
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    "Provided it is absolutely necessary to defend one's own life, one has the right to kill another person" in your eyes is equivalent to "One has the right to kill another person"
    Your false analogy has no meaning. If the Second Amendment use a phrase like provided it it is necessary then it would definitely be interpreted as one clause. But it doesn't
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 15:44
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    Your false analogy has no meaning. If the Second Amendment use a phrase like provided it it is necessary then it would definitely be interpreted as one clause. But it doesn't
    Wow you're dumb.

    No, it just used a construct like "X being necessary, do Y".

    It's ok, though, English is hard.
  13. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55380
    10 Apr '18 16:14
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    Wow you're dumb.

    No, it just used a construct like "X being necessary, do Y".

    It's ok, though, English is hard.
    History does not agree with you, nor does the Supreme Court of the United States. But being the genius you are, you found a video and believe that all those that don;t agree with your video are dumb. Perhaps instead of calling others names you should look in the mirror and realize that the moron is you.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '18 16:41
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    History does not agree with you, nor does the Supreme Court of the United States. But being the genius you are, you found a video and believe that all those that don;t agree with your video are dumb. Perhaps instead of calling others names you should look in the mirror and realize that the moron is you.
    yes, it fukin does. time and again, both the founders and the supreme court have stated these things, both that the second amendment phrasing is intentional (i.e. it is in the context of militias that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed) and the fact that it does not prohibit regulation of the kinds of arms allowed, ie freakin AR-15's. Like i said, it wasn't until Scalia and his dumb ass that there was any mention of individual rights.

    "and believe that all those that don't agree with your video are dumb."
    you never watched it.
  15. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55380
    10 Apr '18 17:17
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    yes, it fukin does. time and again, both the founders and the supreme court have stated these things, both that the second amendment phrasing is intentional (i.e. it is in the context of militias that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed) and the fact that it does not prohibit regulation of the kinds of arms allowed, ie freakin AR-15's. Like i s ...[text shortened]...
    "and believe that all those that don't agree with your video are dumb."
    you never watched it.
    Your suggestion that we should ignore the Supreme Court and our founder fathers in order to listen to an idea you got from a youtube video is amusing -- amazingly arrogant -- but definitely quite amusing.
    It is factually incorrect to state that it was Scalia's idea that the Bill of Rights lists individual rights or that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns. But, don't let facts interfere with your youtube video beliefs.
Back to Top