Man, fuck the Constitution. "It's in the Constitution" should not be a valid argument for keeping things the way they are. I know some might think I'm a heretic or whatever but I think we should decide the laws that we want to uphold in our nation. The fact that some racist assholes thought 250 years ago that folks oughta have muskets is not enough to prove to me that the government shouldn't regulate assault fucking rifles. Maybe it's time for another amendment. But even that's not necessary: is vague enough to accommodate regulation anyway. In fact, that's the whole point. It was written vaguely because our Founding Fathers couldn't agree one way or another so they basically left it up to their descendants. So what did we do? Just assumed they meant what we wanted them to instead of actually considering the issue for ourselves.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
Guess you won't mind if the police walk into your house and start rifling through it, then? Of course. But that's not what Obama was saying, and so that's not what I was criticizing.Man, fuck the Constitution.
is vague enough to accommodate regulation anyway.
I'm not saying let's get rid of the Constitution. I'm saying a policy being in the Constitution is not an acceptable defense for its continued enforcement. Except it is? He's not saying get rid of all the guns, right? So it's not prohibition. Gotta be regulation.Guess you won't mind if the police walk into your house and start rifling through it, then?
But that's not what Obama was saying, and so that's not what I was criticizing.
Well, the warrant requirement is in the Constitution too. If that's not an "acceptable defense for its continued enforcement," what is, exactly? No, but what he is saying is that one right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) is subject to having "gone to an ISIS website." I'm sure I've been to some shady websites during my time on the Internet, does that mean my Constitutional rights are less than yours?I'm saying a policy being in the Constitution is not an acceptable defense for its continued enforcement.
Except it is? He's not saying get rid of all the guns, right?
No, not like legal justification. The justification for it continuing to be law. Basically I'm saying don't take further amendment off the table. That's beside the point. I'm just saying guns can be regulated, which is what Obama suggests. You said that wasn't what he said.Well, the warrant requirement is in the Constitution too. If that's not an "acceptable defense for its continued enforcement," what is, exactly?
No, but what he is saying is that one right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) is subject to having "gone to an ISIS website." I'm sure I've been to some shady websites during my time on the Internet, does that mean my Constitutional rights are less than yours?
That's fine, and that's how it should work. But in the meantime we can't pretend that it doesn't exist because we don't agree with it. I was referring to his statements about the no-fly list versus gun purchasing.Basically I'm saying don't take further amendment off the table.
I'm just saying guns can be regulated, which is what Obama suggests.
That's fine, and that's how it should work. But in the meantime we can't pretend that it doesn't exist because we don't agree with it.
This was also my point before I got muted into oblivion. I'm glad there are other sane minds out here that agree with this point.
But a regulation based on free speech and association. You know, the kind guaranteed in by the First Amendment?
I'm definitely not, and don't think we should (discount all regulation, that is). But all I was saying before was that the specific things Obama suggested were not what we should be looking at.