• Georgia law allows guns in some schools, bars, churches
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44680514]Sshhh...this is a logic free zone....[/QUOTE] This is the exact shit I was talking about. My God you are literally the dumbest fucker on this forum I think. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44680498]Sure, I'd say freedom of speech is a bit more important. You might say that "Oh, but the 2nd amendment protects free speech", but what's more important? The guard or the thing being guarded? And I'd also argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't in any way serve that purpose today anyway.[/QUOTE] Lol..the 2nd Amendment protects every other Amendment in the bill of rights. I know this is going to be a huge controversial shock for some to hear.... tyranny is real...it happens.... [editline]29th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;44680517]This is the exact shit I was talking about. My God you are literally the dumbest fucker on this forum I think.[/QUOTE] Weren't you just crying about people taking things seriously? And now you're all butthurt for no reason...shit wasn't even necessarily directed at you....
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44680523]Lol..the 2nd Amendment protects every other Amendment in the bill of rights. I know this is going to be a huge controversial shock for some to hear.... tyranny is real...it happens....[/QUOTE] Do you know what else protects your rights? Voting. Checkmate. But please do tell me how the 2nd is actually protecting your rights? I don't see the militias standing up for anybody but racist hicks who won't pay their bills. I don't see them taking on the government over things like Gitmo, or the NSA, or anything that actually matters. Please, do tell me how your guns are actually doing anything but acting as the penile extension they represent? [QUOTE]You mad bro?[/QUOTE] Please. Calling you the dumbest fucker is just my opinion on things, you can't attack me for that, I mean, I can't attack you for thinking I'm a dumbass for not supporting guns apparently?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44680485]It was written to be changed for the times, not to stagnate as the conservatives would like.[/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44680555]Source?[/QUOTE] idk. The fact is has the amendment process? The same one that's been used multiple times throughout the history of your country? Come on, for a guy who cares about his constitution you should know this.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44680552]Do you know what else protects your rights? Voting. Checkmate. But please do tell me how the 2nd is actually protecting your rights? I don't see the militias standing up for anybody but racist hicks who won't pay their bills. I don't see them taking on the government over things like Gitmo, or the NSA, or anything that actually matters. Please, do tell me how your guns are actually doing anything but acting as the penile extension they represent? Please. Calling you the dumbest fucker is just my opinion on things, you can't attack me for that, I mean, I can't attack your for thinking I'm a dumbass for not supporting guns apparently?[/QUOTE] Dude please...I'm not gonna sit here and call you a dumb ass just because you're afraid of intimate objects... Are you one of those people that thinks you can literally take all guns off the streets of North America? Yes? Then you're probably a dumbass. Do you fail to see how disarming over 800,000,000 law abiding gun owners is a bad idea? Yes? You might be a dumbass... It's on you, mang. [editline]29th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;44680572]idk. The fact is has the amendment process? The same one that's been used multiple times throughout the history of your country? Come on, for a guy who cares about his constitution you should know this.[/QUOTE] What amendments have been changed?
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44680604]Dude please...I'm not gonna sit here and call you a dumb ass just because you're afraid of intimate objects... Are you one of those people that thinks you can literally take all guns off the streets of North America? Yes? Then you're probably a dumbass. Do you fail to see how disarming over 800,000,000 law abiding gun owners is a bad idea? Yes? You might be a dumbass... It's on you, mang.[/QUOTE] I know there are gargantuan logistical issues with disarming on such a massive scale. However it has been shown in the past that people will willingly give up weapons (in cities in particular) through collection drives. Outside of that, confiscation of weapons (not necessarily leading to the arrest of the owner) would clean up those used in crime. Leaving guns that aren't used floating around, should they be stolen (as most guns used in crime are), they'd be cleaned up eventually. It's not an impossible feat, it would however take a lot of time and probably a fair bit of money. As for amendments that have been changed, none that I know of off the top of my head, outside of those that have been overruled by later amendments such as the prohibition (18th/ 21st). So, it's not like the document is the be-all end-all.
There's a reason why they made amendments in the first place.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44680677]I know there are gargantuan logistical issues with disarming on such a massive scale. However it has been shown in the past that people will willingly give up weapons (in cities in particular) through collection drives. Outside of that, confiscation of weapons (not necessarily leading to the arrest of the owner) would clean up those used in crime. Leaving guns that aren't used floating around, should they be stolen (as most guns used in crime are), they'd be cleaned up eventually. It's not an impossible feat.. [/QUOTE] ...In Great Britain.....and LA-LA land... It will take a lot more than time and money to achieve outright confiscation in the U.S. It will also require the blood of many innocent Cops. Try gun confiscation in America dude...just try it. You will have dead law enforcement officers on the steps of American homes within hours.. Gun owners that know what's up WILL stand by the "cold dead hands" response.
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44680604] What amendments have been changed?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]List of ammendments to the U.S. Constitution[/URL] [QUOTE=Berque-IL;44680555]Source?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution"]Living constitution perspective[/URL] as hex said the constitution was created to be malleable to a certain extent, the reasoning why we have in several articles the process of which we can change ammendments to the bill of rights. the second ammendment is not set in stone and attempting to interpret it to the letter causes legal [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdity_doctrine#Doctrine_of_absurdity"]absurdities[/URL], Both the strict constructionalism and the Living Constitutions theories of thought have their logical fallacies.
The 2nd was made to protect the others, it allows for civilians to own arms, and form militias if need be. The Bill of Rights does not get changed all of the time, the Bill of Rights is pretty much unchanged, even if our own government is too stupid to realize it. As the years change, so does the technology. Guns are a part of freedom, and although we've allowed freedoms to slowly erode away, they can never just outright take them. Guns have been utilized for good before. In 92, when the police would not help protect Korean shop owners who were being victimized during the LA riots, what did they do? They used firearms to protect their livelihoods. The Police take minutes to respond in a situation that can be over in seconds. Would rather much have a fighting chance than to just allow myself to get mugged, and/or killed by some criminal with a weapon.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;44680963] In 92, when the police would not help protect Korean shop owners who were being victimized during the LA riots, what did they do? They used firearms to protect their livelihoods. The Police take minutes to respond in a situation that can be over in seconds. Would rather much have a fighting chance than to just allow myself to get mugged, and/or killed by some criminal with a weapon.[/QUOTE] Again..more logic that will go unheard and be deemed, "not legit because it is anecdote lawl" It's funny as shit too because the riots were cause by a random citizen filming police brutality in the first place...then riots break out and the police are like, "uhh..not our problem you guys". And you're going to trust these same uniformed thugs to protect you when you need a man with a gun and you need it NOW? Please...the most they will do for you is bring you blankets and hot coco after your family has been tortured or raped because you weren't MAN enough to take personal responsibility into your own hands. When Miles Hendricks the 3rd was shot right in front of me in our home around July 2013, we called the police. They were there in a shocking 120 seconds and it STILL wasn't fast enough to save his life... Those who believe the Police will solve all their problems in a real emergency are truly pampered as shit.
People also don't seem to know that the police actually have no legal obligation to protect you, as decided by the US Supreme Court. You cannot depend on the police to come save you because they literally do not have to.
Why can't people just accept that guns are a part of American culture? It's too late now to really do anything about it, it would take a massive shit on those that work for companies like Colt, Henry, Bushmaster, and the various other manufacturers that have factories open and provide work and income to families. Not to mention that it would really take a shit on those that already own guns. I know of many people that have amassed thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in guns in a collection. Nobody in their right mind is gonna just give that up, it'd be like giving away your car. "But what about mandatory buyback programs?" Those are, for one, expensive as HELL for the government, and if the government decides to do a $200 per gun thing that LA was doing, then those that spent loads of money on a collection basically got fucked out of a lot of money because the government said so.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44681154]People also don't seem to know that the police actually have no legal obligation to protect you, as decided by the US Supreme Court. You cannot depend on the police to come save you because they literally do not have to.[/QUOTE] The memo hasn't been received by many internet users located in LALA LAND time zone for some reason...
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44681154]People also don't seem to know that the police actually have no legal obligation to protect you, as decided by the US Supreme Court. You cannot depend on the police to come save you because they literally do not have to.[/QUOTE] We get told this every fucking thread. And every fucking thread we point out that's a stupid as fuck thing for a police force and really does explain why the US is how it is.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44681234]We get told this every fucking thread. And every fucking thread we point out that's a stupid as fuck thing for a police force and really does explain why the US is how it is.[/QUOTE] You seem really angry about DaCommie1 pointing truth out. Are you going to keep focusing on things you can't change or come join us in reality? [editline]30th April 2014[/editline] There are two types of people in the world, hopeless romantics and realists.. [editline]30th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;44680485]The constitution gets changed a ton..[/QUOTE] Examples?
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44681245]You seem really angry about DaCommie1 pointing truth out. Are you going to keep focusing on things you can't change or come join us in reality? [/QUOTE] its not truth it is an example used by people as a strawman arguement when the decision on it's own has bred a mire of exceptions to the own decison (referring to castle rock v. gonzales, and warren v DC). Namely the special relation exception that argues that law enforcement have a duty to protect that which have a special relation. in the Public Duty Doctrine a special relation is created when [QUOTE](1) some form of privity or direct contact between the government agency and the plaintiff that sets the plaintiff apart from the general public; (2) the agency gave the plaintiff specific assurances that resulted in the agency undertaking a duty; and (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied upon those assurances.[/QUOTE] in short with this test a simple police call can pass as a special relation and therefore a duty to protect the individual is made through the affirmative act of a dispatch operator. Furthermore Faliure to protect from harm is listed the under [URL="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law"]color of law[/URL] abuses in the Civil Rights section of the FBI's investigations page since i dont quite feel like taking up the forum space of listing out the role of international law in such an event as well as other cases i'd much rather let the [URL="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/washburn_2013-05-24--aclu_amicus_brief.pdf"] Amicus Brief of The ACLU Regarding Washburn V City of Federal Way[/URL] in short that statement has many holes in it and in light of recent trends in cases, the decision is likely to get nullfied. [editline]30th April 2014[/editline] well fuck didn't read he got perma'd oh well still going to keep the response up since it is an arguement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.