Gun Control & RKBA

bongbong

(5,436 posts)

125. Ironic

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 04:31 PM

Sep 2012

> They are in fact slowly creating a world where it will become necessary for all of us to go everywhere armed to the teeth

The irony is that that kind of thing won't help you keep any safer. You'll increase your chances of getting shot, unless you assume you can "get the draw" on everybody, and that you won't get mistaken for another "evildoer" when you pull out your piece if there are a bunch of gunners there.

The Tragedy Of The Commons and other other essays comes to mind, and may be applicable.

The NRA doesn't care about any of that, just like repigs in general don't care if society breaks down because of their economic policies. They'll always have fences to hide behind and extra homes in safe places (meaning, among other things: places with gun control laws instead of the Wild West situation in the USA)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The second amendment is irrelevant- [View all] digonswine Sep 2012 OP

So let me know when the Supreme Court comes around to your way of thinking hack89 Sep 2012 #1

That is not an argument-no content digonswine Sep 2012 #2

I don't like playing fantasy games when it comes to my civil rights. hack89 Sep 2012 #4

But I disagree-I agree with your personal rights- digonswine Sep 2012 #7

There is nothing more secure than an enumerated right hack89 Sep 2012 #13

" It rings hollow. " That is also not an argument. n/t Common Sense Party Sep 2012 #111

The right protected by the second amendment pre-dates the constitution. X_Digger Sep 2012 #3

You are off about what I think- digonswine Sep 2012 #5

The second amendment protects the right. X_Digger Sep 2012 #8

Why the militia qualifier? digonswine Sep 2012 #11

Only if you assume that the rights are limited by the bill of rights. X_Digger Sep 2012 #15

I do not feel that rights should be limited by this document- digonswine Sep 2012 #18

Then that person would be an idiot. X_Digger Sep 2012 #20

I can't quite agree. digonswine Sep 2012 #23

So how do you codify that right to defend yourself without mentioning the 2A? hack89 Sep 2012 #35

Yeah-I don't know really. digonswine Sep 2012 #37

In general I oppose any attempt to weaken anything in the Bill of Rights hack89 Sep 2012 #40

So let me get this straight, Missycim Sep 2012 #61

I will say that it is very unlikely, digonswine Sep 2012 #69

Who would go toe to toe with a standing army? Missycim Sep 2012 #75

You must not have been around here during he Bush days. Common Sense Party Sep 2012 #113

There is no way to construe that through grammar, history or legal precedent. PavePusher Sep 2012 #129

Are you confused? You act as if the 2nd amendment actually grants us rights? DonP Sep 2012 #6

Not confused- digonswine Sep 2012 #9

Why is there no need for a Missycim Sep 2012 #63

I guess I need to know what you are referring to- digonswine Sep 2012 #67

I might have misunderstood you Missycim Sep 2012 #71

I feel this danger is minimal and our response would be ineffective. digonswine Sep 2012 #74

With that attitude it would Missycim Sep 2012 #76

I have guns, too ya know. digonswine Sep 2012 #81

How did we get to the point were we are at today? How did we get to the place where gunners upaloopa Sep 2012 #10

But here we are- digonswine Sep 2012 #14

What is an opinion? Is it just some thought like a wisp that floats around in the air and has no upaloopa Sep 2012 #27

They can insult all they want- digonswine Sep 2012 #31

I think I understand were you are coming from. I respect your right to your opinion and your upaloopa Sep 2012 #43

Since number can be spun, they are useless? digonswine Sep 2012 #54

So the FBI's UCR is gunner statictics? glacierbay Sep 2012 #55

As far as I can tell glacierbay Sep 2012 #34

I feel that the gun lobby is not rational. Instead of gun nut I could say irrational gun people. upaloopa Sep 2012 #52

You are most definitely not in the majority. glacierbay Sep 2012 #59

That is complete bullshit. You don't hear from the majority because they don't make upaloopa Sep 2012 #85

Sorry, you're 100% wrong. glacierbay Sep 2012 #94

"Instead of gun nut I could say irrational gun people." PavePusher Sep 2012 #134

I am unclear on who you are talking about DWC Sep 2012 #141

Ahhh...yet another example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #22

In most places, you always could gejohnston Sep 2012 #62

How did we get to a point violent crime is on the decline? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #126

Appaerntly, someone bought into bigotry. PavePusher Sep 2012 #130

but but but gejohnston Sep 2012 #131

Wrong 2A is there to protect us against a standing army. Reread your history books. Peepsite Sep 2012 #12

But that is, in this day and age, nonsense. digonswine Sep 2012 #16

Sure. So that doesn't abolish the 2A. We also have the 3rd. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #82

define reasonable regulation gejohnston Sep 2012 #89

that's easy: for you, any change to current regulations are not reasonable unless Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #101

no I don't know that gejohnston Sep 2012 #103

can you show me one statement of you supporting any proposed new regulation? Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #108

Most if not all of the proposed federal regualtions gejohnston Sep 2012 #112

so that would be a no. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #117

not a run around at all gejohnston Sep 2012 #127

The writers of the constitution opposed a standing army. Remmah2 Sep 2012 #17

Great-so what? digonswine Sep 2012 #21

And you can thank the 2A for your safe home, town, country. Remmah2 Sep 2012 #25

Wow! bongbong Sep 2012 #29

He made a point and backed it up with a historical reference Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #48

You're embarrassing yourself bongbong Sep 2012 #102

Please explain this post- digonswine Sep 2012 #32

Sure Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #68

We are in a very different position today and have every defensive implement that digonswine Sep 2012 #72

Never say never Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #77

I think we have the foreign thing pretty well covered. digonswine Sep 2012 #80

We can send them the guns from our gun buy back programs. Remmah2 Sep 2012 #92

From DU2 Remmah2 Sep 2012 #88

The 2nd amendment is the foundation for gun rights in this country Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #19

I would argue this way: MicaelS Sep 2012 #24

I appreciate the civility sensibleness-Thanks. digonswine Sep 2012 #45

Thank you for the civility glacierbay Sep 2012 #73

Most of us are pretty decent- digonswine Sep 2012 #78

Not really glacierbay Sep 2012 #83

Oh god no! digonswine Sep 2012 #84

Hahahaha glacierbay Sep 2012 #97

Any legal argument will rrneck Sep 2012 #26

Yikes. digonswine Sep 2012 #41

Yikes indeed. rrneck Sep 2012 #60

LOL Marinedem Sep 2012 #28

Great post! digonswine Sep 2012 #33

According to the NRA... bongbong Sep 2012 #30

+1000 ellisonz Sep 2012 #38

That takes care of the 6 million NRA members - what about the 50 million non-NRA gun owners? hack89 Sep 2012 #46

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #50

Please post Jenoch Sep 2012 #99

Really? jeepnstein Sep 2012 #104

This message was self-deleted by its author glacierbay Sep 2012 #106

Access to guns and ammunition is not a "right," nor can it be. Loudly Sep 2012 #36

How can you tell someone- digonswine Sep 2012 #39

Guns as an excuse for guns leads us precisely where? Loudly Sep 2012 #47

What is your answer, though? digonswine Sep 2012 #56

Slow down the proliferation and turn off the spigot. Loudly Sep 2012 #58

So how is one supposed to defend themselves if they are unable Missycim Sep 2012 #66

So... Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #100

sharesunited loudly spigot beevul Sep 2012 #109

Lol. Nice. Union Scribe Sep 2012 #116

How do you propose to convince 1/4 of the population that they are perverts? friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #143

Shares-- err Loudly doesn't have an answer. n/t X_Digger Sep 2012 #98

I was not aware Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #42

Check your premise. Not a right. You've been brainwashed. Loudly Sep 2012 #49

Then please explain why it's not a right nt Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #70

The Second Amendment isn't a genuine right? glacierbay Sep 2012 #44

It was a bone thrown to those suspicious of the federal government. Loudly Sep 2012 #53

Read the deceleration of Independence Missycim Sep 2012 #65

What you did there.. X_Digger Sep 2012 #133

I think he Shares our almost United opinion that Loudly once went by another name here... friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #136

The right to own, say, and do anything is assumed. All rights exist until they are restricted... slackmaster Sep 2012 #90

This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #51

I am not sure how it is a straw-man- digonswine Sep 2012 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #96

This is complicated- digonswine Sep 2012 #105

You do know you can Missycim Sep 2012 #57

Well no, if you read the history it was originally all about local militias Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #79

there never has been a collectivist interpetation gejohnston Sep 2012 #86

That opinion is where the current court is at. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #107

it really doesn't gejohnston Sep 2012 #110

It does not matter if the second amendment is obsolete or not. It is LAW. Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #87

guns are for women veganlush Sep 2012 #91

+1 Remmah2 Sep 2012 #93

Huh? digonswine Sep 2012 #95

You're being buried bongbong Sep 2012 #114

The problem is that their Hollywood Cowboy Culture idiocy Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #118

Cool straw man, bro. The presence of firearms is clearly what makes Somalia so dangerous. nt rDigital Sep 2012 #119

LOL bongbong Sep 2012 #122

Ironic bongbong Sep 2012 #125

I don't think that helps anything. digonswine Sep 2012 #121

Well.... bongbong Sep 2012 #123

Just name a few, please. digonswine Sep 2012 #124

Our rights are not given to us michreject Sep 2012 #115

That was covered in another post. digonswine Sep 2012 #120

And it's worth repeating michreject Sep 2012 #137

You obviously did not read and- digonswine Sep 2012 #138

"It applies only to a standing militia..." Well, no, actually; it applies to the people. PavePusher Sep 2012 #128

I completely agree with this--- digonswine Sep 2012 #140

You're half right, the militia part isn't needed... ileus Sep 2012 #132

For the sake of argument... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #135

That is pretty much what I have said numerous times here. digonswine Sep 2012 #139

Cool discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #142

If RKBA is not covered by the 2nd, it is indisputable that it's a natural, inherent, inalienable/ jody Sep 2012 #144

Thanks-I'll peruse them when I have a bit more time. digonswine Sep 2012 #145