Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

Damocles said:
Duh. I understand we take a risk and that nutjobs will exist. However, the risk is not worth allowing government to infringe on a fundamental right. If you believe it is worth the risk get your political party to put forth an Amendment to the constitution. There is a reason we can Amend the constitution, it isn't so we can ignore the parts we don't like and dismiss it because we believe that the fundamental right is too risky.

I would rather, like our forefathers, live with the risk associated with too many rights than risk the infringement of fundamental rights.
Click to expand...

So how do new gun laws get passed then? The second amendment hasn't changed yet Clinton was still able to pass a law in 1994 to ban assault weapons.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So how do new gun laws get passed then? The second amendment hasn't changed yet Clinton was still able to pass a law in 1994 to ban assault weapons.
Click to expand...
the supreme court decided a case a few decades ago that said any law from congress must be presumed constitutional. therefore congress can pass any law that it wants to (provided they have the votes) and it then becomes up to us as 'we the people' to challenge the law once we've been harmed.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So how do new gun laws get passed then? The second amendment hasn't changed yet Clinton was still able to pass a law in 1994 to ban assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Because too many people ignore the restrictions on the government and would rather risk a government that oversteps than one that stays within its boundaries as listed by the constitution. Too many are unwilling to jealously guard the rights of others, even if they do not like them, in order to feel "safe".

Freedom has risks, and often it is popular to work to remove the risk at the expense of freedom.

And his law didn't ban "assault weapons", it literally banned how some "assault weapons" look. It was a cosmetic law, didn't do what it was proposed to do, and infringed unnecessarily on rights without regard to constitutional limitation.
 
Expect more shot-up theaters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should assume this to be a "threat" and notify the authorities, and have you institutionalized for psychiatric evaluation? You may be a potential threat to society... we can't afford to take the risk! What if you go out and follow through with this threat? The public MUST be protected!!
 
Dixie said:
Perhaps we should assume this to be a "threat" and notify the authorities, and have you institutionalized for psychiatric evaluation? You may be a potential threat to society... we can't afford to take the risk! What if you go out and follow through with this threat? The public MUST be protected!!
Click to expand...

Go ahead, rube. Call the authorities and tell them there's a boogey man on your pc.

Idiot.
 
Damocles said:
Duh. I understand we take a risk and that nutjobs will exist. However, the risk is not worth allowing government to infringe on a fundamental right. If you believe it is worth the risk get your political party to put forth an Amendment to the constitution. There is a reason we can Amend the constitution, it isn't so we can ignore the parts we don't like and dismiss it because we believe that the fundamental right is too risky.

I would rather, like our forefathers, live with the risk associated with too many rights than risk the infringement of fundamental rights.
Click to expand...
Nutjobs insist that the second amendment says theat the average citizen has a right to own and use military style weapons and buy clips that hold 100 rounds. That isn't what it says. Those that promote such beliefs are culpable and should take responsibility. Many NRA members agree with me rather than the anarchist belief that becoming Somalia is something the majority in this country want.
 
Bijou said:
That's nice. We're not talking about swimming pools or cars. The subject is guns and whackos who have 'rights' to possess them. You think it's worth the risk. Goody. Expect more shot-up theaters.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is both child deaths in the swimming pool and child deaths by guns are due to irresponsible parents. That's why there's strict laws regarding pools.

Why aren't there strict laws to keep kids away from guns in the parent's home?
 
Haiku said:
Nutjobs insist that the second amendment says theat the average citizen has a right to own and use military style weapons and buy clips that hold 100 rounds. That isn't what it says. Those that promote such beliefs are culpable and should take responsibility. Many NRA members agree with me rather than the anarchist belief that becoming Somalia is something the majority in this country want.
Click to expand...

those that believe the 2nd Amendment is about the military and national guard are flat out stupid or ignorant. It's completely impossible to conceive that the framers of the constitution, who had just experienced an oppressive central government and military, would ensure that the one they are newly building would still have that same ability.
 
Howey said:
Yet they did it anyhow...
Click to expand...
uh, no. not even close. the government GREW because of statist retards like yourself, the ones too afraid to fight or defend themselves so they threw that responsibility on the government. People like YOU, who are so afraid of the freedoms and rights of others, that they happily surrender theirs so that the government will take away the others.
 
Haiku said:
Nutjobs insist that the second amendment says theat the average citizen has a right to own and use military style weapons and buy clips that hold 100 rounds. That isn't what it says. Those that promote such beliefs are culpable and should take responsibility. Many NRA members agree with me rather than the anarchist belief that becoming Somalia is something the majority in this country want.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment:
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.

Where does it say I can't bear a certain kind or type of arms?

Where does it say the government has a right to tell me how many arms or what kind of ammo?

I see where it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... that seems pretty clear to me, are you having a problem interpreting it?
 
Many NRA members agree with me...
Click to expand...

No they don't, not unless they are fucking idiots who either don't understand the 2nd Amendment and what it says, or they've listened to your stupidity so long it rubbed off. I don't know of ANY NRA member who agrees with you, and I know quite a few. Most of my family, and many of my friends, to be exact. In honesty, you probably don't even personally know an NRA member, you're just shooting your mouth off like the liberal lying punk you are.
 
Dixie said:
No they don't, not unless they are fucking idiots who either don't understand the 2nd Amendment and what it says, or they've listened to your stupidity so long it rubbed off. I don't know of ANY NRA member who agrees with you, and I know quite a few. Most of my family, and many of my friends, to be exact. In honesty, you probably don't even personally know an NRA member, you're just shooting your mouth off like the liberal lying punk you are.
Click to expand...

I believe that at least one third of the NRA membership does.
 
Bijou said:
I've proposed a possible remedy to the problem of whackos shooting up movie theaters: no guns for whackos. Start with denying established whackos gun rights. Implement a method for determining mental stability as a condition for obtaining guns. Those wiser than me can figure out the particulars, but there's the crux. You don't like it. Quel surprise. That's my answer.
Click to expand...

Should we do the same thing for women who want abortions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top