Commander Riker Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 "I don't like Mondays; this livens up the day." She only killed 2. I'm pretty sure the mass shooting level is like 10 or something. :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 And mass vs. single murder is all that different? Reminds me of the saying: "A billion here, a billion there and eventually we're talking about real money here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'm sorry to say murder is as american as apple pie... To err is human, to murder is more human than human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Chuck is more human than human ... So does that mean that Chuck is ... *gulp ... murder personified ?!?!?! You know, I would agree with you Lucas if it weren't for the fact that it's the lobbying arm of the NRA - the Institute for Legislative Action - who has completely shifted the modern conversation and interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA of my childhood has dramatically changed as a result of their near complete paranoia around creating the image that someone is going to come take your guns away and everyone should have the right to own a gun. The intention of the 2nd ammendment really isn't debatable. I don't care which side tries to distort its meaning they are still wrong. Let's ditch lobbying firms and then allow people to discuss things like always and hold peaceful protests. Lobbying is not a right. Edited January 10, 2013 by Gideon35T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted January 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 We are all capable of taking lives. How we do it, and when we don't is what elevates us. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 And mass vs. single murder is all that different? Reminds me of the saying: "A billion here, a billion there and eventually we're talking about real money here." Sorry... a crude attempt at a joke, Alain. Didn't work. Not funny. *sorryfaceWe are all capable of taking lives. How we do it, and when we don't is what elevates us. Well said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Sorry... a crude attempt at a joke, Alain. Didn't work. Not funny. *sorryfaceWell said!! It wasn't intended to be a joke. It was intentional to show how the taking of a single life is mundane news of which we barely take notice. It takes something truly disastrous and shocking to cause the public to sit up and take notice. I live in a metropolitan area where taking life appears to be a game given the epidemic we're experiencing this last year. And that pales in comparison to what it was 20 years ago. We've become numb to death. Like Chuck pointed out. And the intent of the 2nd Amendment is entirely debatable because the understanding has shifted significantly from its legal precedence since it was originally written. Back in 1995 the Supreme Court was still sitting on a long held belief that it didn't bestow complete rights to individuals including the right to concealed carry. As we know they've since shifted away from that in several rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 It wasn't intended to be a joke. It was intentional to show how the taking of a single life is mundane news of which we barely take notice. It takes something truly disastrous and shocking IN THE MEDIA to cause the public to sit up and take notice. I live in a metropolitan area where taking life appears to be a game given the epidemic we're experiencing this last year. And that pales in comparison to what it was 20 years ago. Fixed that for ya ;-)And the intent of the 2nd Amendment is entirely debatable because the understanding has shifted significantly from its legal precedence since it was originally written. Back in 1995 the Supreme Court was still sitting on a long held belief that it didn't bestow complete rights to individuals including the right to concealed carry. As we know they've since shifted away from that in several rulings. The intent is not debatable to anyone who understands the english language and context. "understanding has shifted" has nothing to do with anything. The fact is not maliable just because we view something differently. This is besides the fact that the same document notes that the Federal government does not have the right to impose anything along these lines because it's not a right specifically granted to them to have power over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'm not even going to debate this with you. I have two close friends who clerked for sitting Supreme Court Justices. We've discussed at length how the court changed the 2nd Amendment for better or worse with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. You're stating an interpretation of what the text of the amendment states, one that 5 Justices largely agreed with. There were four however who strongly disagreed with that interpretation. So to say this is a settled right ignores the history of legal precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 The Supreme Court should be disbanded. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule constitutionality and be the final authority on the law. Somewhere along the line it became a political appointment and instantly became the antithesis of what it's there for. Hence why you have splits in the rulings. If something is constitutional (or not) then there is no "interpretation" to be made. Just a judgement one way or the other. Politics is what makes for the influence of personal opinion and yeilds such close splits. Furthermore, as nothing is quantified in the 2nd it is purely a principle based article. Formulated based upon a principle that the people should be armed AGAINST their government. One cannot "interpret" such a principle to mean anything more or less. Now, people can debate if a particluar firearm is reasonably protected under this, sure. However, one would therefor need to keep in mind the principle where we must be capable of fighting our own government or the entire ammendment becomes pointless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Let me guess, you're a fan of Marc Stevens and American Freedom Radio? He's out of your neck of the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 So basically you're Looking for 2 men enter, 1 man leave justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 So basically you're Looking for 2 men enter, 1 man leave justice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEaX4ApC_EU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YDuSLXcX8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon35T Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Let me guess, you're a fan of Marc Stevens and American Freedom Radio? He's out of your neck of the woods. I haven't watched television in years, I don't listen to the radio for anything but music, and I don't follow any of the Rush Limbaughs or similar (for any side of any issue). This ofcourse wouldn't change the fact that I'm stating a fact and you're arguing a point that doesn't exist except in the minds of people who only follow the constitution where is agrees with them.So basically you're Looking for 2 men enter, 1 man leave justice If I'm one man and the other is a badguy trying to do harm to me or those I have to take care of? Then yeah, for sure. It doesn't matter if the other "man" is an individual badguy, a group, an organization, or the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 This ofcourse wouldn't change the fact that I'm stating a fact and you're arguing a point that doesn't exist except in the minds of people who only follow the constitution where is agrees with them. Define "fact." I'm an originalist when it comes to the Constitution. So we may not be as far off from each other as you think. But what you are discussing is a matter of law. Facts are questions that juries resolve. The recognition of a meaning behind a text is a question of law and in our system as set up by the constitution you so revere, that is established through precedence. I suspect the word you're looking for is truth or that which governs the principle of gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts