02-23-2009, 05:52 PM | #21 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I mean, if Obama said "I will be faithful to my marriage vows", the equivalent would be him #&$#ing dozens of women after marriage, while claiming 1) he is still faithful, and 2) not deceptive. Of course, to make the analogy complete, he would be have *(#$ing dozens of women before the marriage as well.
If you were paying attention to his record before the election, you would have known he was not a man to be trusted with your rights. |
02-23-2009, 05:55 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
You act as if Obama has no legal foundation for his views. If anything, he is merely adopting the holding in Heller and applying it (note that Heller, authored by Scalia, specifically points out that "dangerous and unusual" guns, such as assault weapons (which he cites as a category which may legally be banned from prior Supreme Court precedent), are not covered by the 2nd Amendment. This isn't an exercise of just making the 2nd Amendment say whatever we want it to say. He has strong legal arguments in his camp. The approach you just outlined doesn't. Again, cite one right that has no restriction whatsoever. If you can't, explain why this right is any different. |
|
02-23-2009, 05:55 PM | #23 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
He wants to limit the right to own weapons. How is that being pro-2nd Amendment?
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
02-23-2009, 06:00 PM | #24 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-23-2009, 06:01 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
The 2nd Amendment is a legal instrument. As such, it is subject to legal analysis. There is plenty of justification, under normal methods of legal interpretation, to suggest that automatic weapons aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Read Heller, for crying out loud. Even the very conservative Scalia disagrees with your view of the amendment. Is he anti-gun? |
|
02-23-2009, 06:03 PM | #26 | ||
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is certainly not "unusual." And being "dangerous" is the purpose of owning a gun. If I want something that isn't dangerous, I will buy non-toxic playdough. Or an apple. When I purchase a firearm, I want something that goes BANG when I pull the trigger, and doesn't go BANG when I DON'T pull the trigger. You can't argue with sheep. They look at the history of the world and go "what could go wrong?" |
||
02-23-2009, 06:04 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I would like to discuss economics but only if we limit the discussion to our favorite food additives. |
|
02-23-2009, 06:04 PM | #28 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
Is it legal for me to buy and own a silencer? I presume you do not know the answer to these questions. |
|
02-23-2009, 06:05 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
02-23-2009, 06:07 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Waters, you once again are out of your element here. Whether or not something may legally be purchased has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd Amendment gives us a right to own them. The 2nd Amendment is the floor, it is not the ceiling. If a weapon isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, the government may regulate it or ban it or whatever else it wants. It may also permit it, if the legislature wants to. Stay on point.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|