Oh ouch your harsh vulgar words are cutting me like knifes please make it stop..
You remind me of that Gun Owners that Piers was doing an interview and this Pro Gun guy went off on a complete rant about the Gov trying to take our weapons. He was only on there for a small amount of time before they kicked him off the set. In reality people like you who do not use logic or have no decent counter argument besides saying screw you..is nothing new.
Actually in truth the most un-stable the person appears to be and the more aggressive much like you are. It only feeds into the narrative that some Gun Owners should not be owning weapons like AR-15 just their personality and entire attitude about the situation nicely feeds into the stereotype they have created for themselves.
If people like this like to insult Liberals and call the hippies then I see no reason with I use quotes from Ronald Reagan. Perhaps if people did not use this type of wording it would make my counter arugment invalid sadly people like this only make it stronger that owning weapons for everyone mentally may not be the best healthy of thing
So let me get this straight. When it says regulated it doesn't mean regulated. And when it says militia its really not talking about the militia. But when it says shall not be infringed it means I can own any weapon ever.
This doesn't seem like selective interpretation at all.
I would hope that those who are pushing gun rights on the grounds of preventing a loss of liberty would also be for pushing marriage equality on the grounds of expanding liberty. This is an issue that has bothered me with the conservatives pushing against this bill. Not to say that you fall under this banner, but in general, I see people who seem to fall under the "I fight for the rights that I want" mentality.
Except, you don't want anyone to own semi-autos. Also, Piers is a hack. Seriously, stop worshiping CNN.
---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 10:55 PM ----------
Many people on both "sides" are like that. Its quite sad.
---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 10:56 PM ----------
Are you saying they are wrong? That the means of words can't, and in this situation haven't changed at all?
I didn't say you were. I'm saying for years Reagan was held as everything a republican should be. I know someone I work with that actually has a shrine to him. Meanwhile, he actually worked with the left to get stuff done. But now he is a RINO because he isn't republican enough? Are you kidding me?
Warning: People need to chill out.
I think you're misunderstanding what "logic" actually is in this discussion.
Logic involves looking at history (The assault weapons ban that was already in place in the 90s), seeing how it worked (protip: it did jack shit) and deciding whether to do it again (we shouldn't).
What the hell does anyone hope to accomplish with this ban?
The logic against banning certain types of guns is sound. You don't abridge a constitutional right just because you see no reason said right should extend to some subset of that right.
That's like if you said "Well yeah, the first amendment protects your freedom of speech... but why does anyone need to talk in public about how much they hate black people?"
If you want to abridge a constitutional right you need a DAMN fucking good reason to do so and it is not on us to prove we somehow need it.
The burden is ontologically yours to prove the benefits of banning certain weapons outweigh the costs of abridging our right.
Pretty much I'd reply into detail the Irony of you not caring what a person was considered the highest regarded President in the Republican Party to this very day people still care people to him when they're running for President and your mirror view about something a Liberal said is highly strange.
So I should not care what Ronald said but I SHOULD care what Bill said. Your logic is strange to me. However other posters have already jumped on to this. It's simple if he agreed what you said. You would repeat it just like I have. It only matters what someone said when their supporting your own argument. That is very odd.
Enough of this pussyfooting around.
Give me a single good reason we should ban assault weapons or whatever it is you want to ban.
The burden is on you to prove the benefits of banning certain weapons outweigh the costs. It's not on me to prove I need 100 rounds in a magazine.
RINO is a term coined by Tea Party. Which means to say Republican in name Only. I posted a video about the Tea Party some time back when I talked about Voter ID Laws. I think this video describes them quite nicely. You do not ever hear Republicans call each other RINO's. Only a term used by the most extreme people in their party. (Tea Party)
As regards the people saying "the Second Amendment was included as a counter against tyranny/foreign invasion"...just, no. It was included as a countermeasure against slave rebellions.
But that's beside the point.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi