Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 21    Average: 3.6/5]
54 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4290
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 03/03/14 11:08 AM

54 Responses to Gun Debate Doesn`t Go Well For Anti-Gun Proponent

  1. Profile photo of vonKaiser
    vonKaiser Male 18-29
    108 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 11:13 am
    Link: Gun Debate Doesn`t Go Well For Anti-Gun Proponent - Doesn`t matter which side you stand, Keith Morgan wasn`t prepared for this debate
  2. Profile photo of blykins
    blykins Male 30-39
    32 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 11:30 am
    Looks like the lib on the right got his hindend handed to him.
  3. Profile photo of Agent00Smith
    Agent00Smith Male 18-29
    2581 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 11:36 am
    Police WILL NOT help you in a crisis. I know because my house has been robbed and the police didn`t show up for hours. When they arrived, they were very rude and would not look at any evidence that was there. They told us, "write down a list of things that were stolen and we will look out for them". WRONG!

    All the police want to do is exercise their perceived authority over civilians. They are power hunger children in uniform looking for their next ego boost.
  4. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 11:42 am
    The anti gun guy on this segment is extremely unprepared and I find not qualified to have this discussion. He brings up ridiculous arguments, I can`t believe this wasn`t faked..... this guy is ridiculous.

    There are valid arguments for removing guns from society. this guy tackles none of them.

    The second amendment was for a standing militia. It was redefined later and it can be redefined again.

  5. Profile photo of djwajda
    djwajda Male 40-49
    885 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm
    @Agent00Smith

    So I`m curious. When you dialed 911 was your life in immediate danger or were you merely calling after the fact? I do not condone taking `hours` as you say but if it`s not a life threatening emergency but a discovered theft they`re not going to run code to your home.

    And again if it was after the fact what more would you have liked them to do? Filing a report is what you do in a case like that. Hell I had my van stolen 3 yrs ago and was told the same thing. Give a description, plate # and file the report.

    One thing people like to ignore is the fact that they are most likely not the only person getting something stolen at that point in time.
  6. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    Hey normalfreak:

    The 2nd amendment was NOT only intended for a militia, but for all Americans.
  7. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 12:28 pm
    Anyway, the link, in short, explains how the second amendment was intended for people to bear arms, IN SPITE of a well regulated militia.
  8. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 1:05 pm
    normalfreak2-There are valid arguments for removing guns from society.
    Please elaborate. Even ignoring the fact that it`s IMPOSSIBLE to `remove guns` from society, we`ll be happy to make you even more of an asshat that the one in the video.

    normalfreak2-The second amendment was for a standing militia.
    See, making your ignorance evident from the start.

    This is going to be fun.
  9. Profile photo of RobSwindol
    RobSwindol Male 30-39
    2508 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm
    Law enforcement isn`t about self defense at all. It`s about offense. Hence the word "enforcement".

    So to lump law enforcement into the same category as average citizens is amazingly naïve and illogical.
  10. Profile photo of RobSwindol
    RobSwindol Male 30-39
    2508 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    That being said, I`m a gun owner and I support the ownership of guns. And even I can see the flaws in this guy`s arguments.

    The problem is, far too many pro gun rights activists, like this man, are not educated or logical enough to carry on a proper debate.
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36204 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Grenade launchers!

  12. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:10 pm
    Well, the 2nd was actually for a "well regulated militia", but, hey, words don`t really matter. I mean, look how much importance we give a single verse in Leviticus about catching cooties from "the gays", or whatever. So, not really surprising that gun advocates want to get at the "meaning" of the constitution re: gun ownership, but many (not all) want to ignore that whole separation discussion and the "meaning", etc.
  13. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:17 pm
    @SmagBoy

    Well, the 2nd was actually for a "well regulated militia", but, hey, words don`t really matter.
    Being that apples are delicious, people should eat them.

    From this statement, which is structured in the same manner as the 2nd Amendment, which conclusion do you reach:

    1. The only reason to eat apples is because they are delicious; or,
    2. One reason people should eat apples is because they are delicious.

    I hope this illustrates your error.
  14. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:31 pm
    HumanAction, I`ve got no beef in this fight. I`m fine with guns. I`m also fine with the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But it *is* an interpretation. The *words* mean something. Of course, I`m all for interpretation. We know history well enough to allow for that and I`m okay with allowing for guns based on the 2nd. What chaps my ass is when folks want to interpret the 2nd, read into the words based on historical knowledge, yet don`t want to interpret other documents, rather insisting on word-for-word adherence to those. BS hypocrisy is all that is.

    By the way, "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" is not the same as saying "Being as apples are delicious, people should eat them." At all.
  15. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:32 pm
    A better analogy would be, "Being as they`re required for operation of a car, the right to own car keys shall not be infringed."
  16. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36204 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    The only thing a government fears is a well armed population. That is reason enough to own a gun.
  17. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    @SmagBoy

    Well, I disagree on your dismissal of my analogy, but either way, let`s use yours.

    "Being as they`re required for operation of a car, the right to own car keys shall not be infringed."

    Which conclusion do you reach?

    1. The only reason that your right to own car keys shall not be infringed is because they are required to operate a car; or,
    2. One reason that your right to own car keys shall not be infringed is because they are required to operate a car.

    See. There is no interpretation necessary to reach the second conclusion. The words alone are sufficient to show that the prefatory clause does not - in any way - restrict the scope of the operative clause.
  18. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    @SmagBoy

    What exactly are you interpreting?
  19. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    SmagBoy1-words don`t really matter.
    Yeah, you`re right. The words `the right of the people` could, in no way, be interpreted to mean the right of the people.
  20. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    "The only thing a government fears is a well armed population."

    The *only* thing, Gerry? You should probably try to avoid absolutes when speaking hypothetically.

    I would say that a government also fears an educated, intelligent populace. That is reason enough to fund education.
  21. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    SmagBoy1-Being as they`re required for operation of a car, the right to own car keys shall not be infringed
    Being as keys, are not in act, required for operation of a car, that statement fails on many levels.

    Not to mention you everyone is free to own car keys, whether they own or operate a car or not. (for that matter, my 2 year old grand daughter owns some car keys.)
  22. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm
    chalket-That is reason enough to fund education.
    Unfortunately, that`s not what we`ve been funding for a long time. It`s called education, but very little of it is.

    On the other hand, they`ll feel really good abou their ignorance.
  23. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    2. One reason that your right to own car keys shall not be...

    See. There is no interpretation necessary to reach the second conclusion.

    So, where did those words behind the 2 come from? Ah, interpretation. You can pretend that the amendment isn`t written as it is, you can interpret it however you want, that`s fine. But when you only look at SOME of the words, and not all, or adding words, you`re interpreting. Like I said, I`m fine with that! I don`t mind guns! I`m for some reasonable access restrictions (but not banning), but I`m not militant about even that. Still, it seem hypocritical to me to go through the grammatical gymnastics over this writing, but not over other documents (e.g. the Bible, etc.). But, anyhoo, it`s obvious we`re not getting anywhere on this. It`s been argued for decades. I don`t care enough the specific subject to argue it more. My bitch is with the hypocrisy is all.
  24. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:52 pm
    Smagboy:

    The second amendment makes way for THE PEOPLE to have arms IN SPITE OF a well regulated militia.
  25. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:54 pm
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - Non-restrictive prefatory clause.

    "Being that apples are delicious" - Non-restrictive prefatory clause.

    ---

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Operative clause.

    "people should eat them." - Operative clause.

    ---

    Can you give me a better reason for your rejection of this analogy. Your current rebuttal amounts to a glorified "nuh uh!"

    *Updated... Multitasking leads to stupid typos... -_-
  26. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    Look, if I say, "being as X is a requirement of this some particular operation, we`re allowing Y", you have to look at both X and Y together. You can`t strip one or the other out and pretend they stand alone. They don`t. But, like I say, I don`t really care so much about the specific issue. But notice how "god" doesn`t appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution, but people bend over backwards to INTERPRET the hell out of other intimations and possible references? *That`s* my point.
  27. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:57 pm
    @SmagBoy

    Ah, interpretation.
    No... they came from the words given. By your definition of "interpretation," every single thing ever written must be interpreted.

    I can say write "I have a dog" and you do not need to interpret it in any way to know that I have a dog.

    Similarly, you do not need to interpret to 2nd Amendment to know that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    If YOU want to add "only in the case of militia," well then sure - you`re interpreting it. I haven`t added or removed anything though.
  28. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 3:59 pm
    @SmagBoy

    you have to look at both X and Y together.
    No... you don`t. It doesn`t say that anywhere. I don`t see anything in the words that say "hey, you need to account for both clauses when looking at either of them."

    You added that bit. You`re interpreting.

    I noticed how you refused to answer my question about your analogy. Which one of those conclusions is supported by your analogy?
  29. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 4:00 pm
    HumanAction, sigh, they`re part of the same sentence. I mean, seriously. Okay, I`m out. :-)
  30. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 4:04 pm
    @SmagBoy

    HumanAction, sigh, they`re part of the same sentence.
    They`re two separate clauses.

    Also, I`ve still noticed that you refuse to state a conclusion about YOUR OWN analogy. Why might that be?
  31. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    Smagboy:

    The comma is there to separate the clauses. Many constitutional scholars agree on that.
  32. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    @auburn

    Many constitutional scholars agree on that.
    Well clearly you`re just interpreting that.

    XD
  33. Profile photo of Denogginizer
    Denogginizer Male 30-39
    821 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 5:09 pm
    Ahhhh. Lefty got his tail spanked. He about crapped his pants when the dude told him he was packing.
  34. Profile photo of Daegog
    Daegog Male 30-39
    1298 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 5:44 pm
    The Constitution can be changed. You have the right to.. absolutely nothing, unless you are rich.

    People have this odd idea that the "founding rapists" were great men or even just swell guys, its just laughable.
  35. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 6:14 pm
    The link didn`t work for me.

    I found this though, Link
  36. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    In both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago the SCOTUS employed both original meaning and textualism to the 2nd amendment and found that both agreed that the individual is allowed to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia.

    LINK

    LINK
  37. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36204 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    Banning guns will totally work.
    Just like banning marijuana.
  38. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 7:56 pm
    For those that believe the 2nd amendment is to protect militias here is a question.
    Would you prefer all us gun nuts to form militias all over the country? For us to train together and get together more often to talk about guns and possibly things we don`t like too?
    This is your alternative. Think about it!
  39. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 8:31 pm
    "You have the right to.. absolutely nothing, unless you are rich."

    Baloney.

    We all have God given rights, rights that are "self evident". These rights can NOT be taken away by any government, because the government didn`t give them to us.

    Too many people think the Bill of Rights "gives" us rights, that is a falsehood. The Bill of Rights tells the government bureaucrats what THEY can not do, not what permissions we are allowed.
  40. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    March 3, 2014 at 10:53 pm
    Banning guns will totally work.
    Just like banning marijuana.
    It`s better than that. When stuff is banned, the black-market replacement is always more potent.

    Alcohol prohibition changed us from beer drinkers into hard liquor drinkers.

    The drug war has taken us from bennnies to meth, from ditch weed to "2-hitter quitter," and from coke to crack.

    If so-called "assault weapons" (read: "scary-looking semi-automatic rifles") are banned, street gangs will soon be using and selling FULLY-automatic AKs which, by the way, would be MUCH easier to smuggle than pot.
  41. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 12:20 am
    By the Hosts own logic, T.V., radio, ball point pens, the interwebs, cell phones, smart phones, land line phones, the modern pencil, CB radios, shortwave radios, the telegraph, fax machines, copy machines, mimeopraph machines, Aldis lamps, etc.. would not be covered by the First amendment.
    Only Free speech that was created or communicated by quill pen, type setting printing press or vocally would be protected. AND if you really want to be technical, the term "Arms" is all encompassing for weapons of any kind. The 2nd doesn`t say "Flintlocks or Muskets or Swords", It says A R M S !!

    Also if the Police were legally obligated to protect us there would be about 15,000,000 law suits a year!! They can`t be every where people!
  42. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2314 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 12:30 am
    Proof that you can not talk sense to a fool. Anyone notice how many times he said "I believe"? Not "I know". That right there is the problem with liberals, they think they know better, when they really just believe better.
  43. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 4:14 am
    My point was the Constitution isn`t set in stone. It`s been amended hundreds of times. Definitions change over time. Slavery was ok before now it`s not. I am a gun owner. With that said I`m in favor of more restrictive laws for gun ownership. I`m all for disarming the police. We have more restrictions on driving/owning a car than we do on owning a gun.
  44. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3388 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 4:18 am
    @ Crakr

    Look at the 4th ammendment and look at the Patriot Act and tell us that again. Our "rights" have been and will be usurped. The Patriot Act passed with little to no arguments or protests.
  45. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 5:01 am
    onoffonoffon:
    "Proof that you can not talk sense to a fool. Anyone notice how many times he said "I believe"? Not "I know". That right there is the problem with liberals, they think they know better, when they really just believe better."
    ------

    That`s the problem with Republicans. They are so brainwashed they don`t listen to things objectively and close their ears to anything that diverges from their talk radio opinions.
  46. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 5:49 am
    onoffonoffon:
    "Proof that you can not talk sense to a fool. Anyone notice how many times he said "I believe"? Not "I know". That right there is the problem with liberals, they think they know better, when they really just believe better."
    ------

    That`s the problem with Republicans. They are so brainwashed they don`t listen to things objectively and close their ears to anything that diverges from their talk radio opinions.


  47. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36204 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 6:23 am

    Patchouly, "That`s the problem with Republicans. They are so brainwashed they don`t listen to things objectively and close their ears to anything that diverges from their talk radio opinions"
    Oh burn! Yeah, republicans like me are so brainwashed. Why I`m just the poster child for the party...a Homo who`s pro gay marriage; pro national healthcare; against religion in schools, government & courts; an atheist who wants evolution taught in school.

    Yeah, Patchouly, you sure pegged me with your description of republicans.

    What a maroon.
  48. Profile photo of toeachhisown
    toeachhisown Male 50-59
    418 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 8:08 am
    @normalfreak2, You are making my point perfectly!! All the various examples I gave have been defined and re-defined in various rulings as technology progressed, AND they have all been ruled as covered under the 1st Amendment. So the logic that the 2nd Amendment should only apply to late 18th century firearms is silly.

  49. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2314 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 8:31 am
    I referenced a video that we could all watch and made points about this video. Could it be more obvious? People assume that when liberal nonsense is pointed out that it must be a republican making those points. I`m actually not interested it that party either. Talking heads from both sides are idiots and people who hold them up as reference points are sheeple. Liberals as just the most arrogant side.
  50. Profile photo of tuapui
    tuapui Male 18-29
    94 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    bah who cares. my country has a ban on firearms and it is working because we have airtight borders. my perspective is that people should be allowed to have whatever dangerous poo they want but must be licensed and certified fit to operate them. Like cars for instance. People die more often from motor accidents than shootings. At least people respect guns enough to not text while shooting.
  51. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 4, 2014 at 3:35 pm
    HumanAction, my apologies. I left this thread and didn`t come back last night. On my own analogy, I suppose I`m wrong in that, sure, you can have car keys and no car. So it`s certainly not perfect. However, it`s kind of silly to have car keys and not a car. Car keys don`t do anything without a car, they`re not made to do anything other than in context of a car, they`re not dangerous outside of use with a car. Cars are constantly being analyzed for safety, they`re constantly being upgraded for safety, research is done on them constantly and NO ONE bitches about people trying to make them safer. Also, when people prove they can`t be trusted with cars, their licenses are taken away and then, if they try to get around THAT, they go to jail.

    As for the comma, yes, *some* constitutional scholars say it separates the clauses--the same scholars who assert that the 2nd is about guns and not militias.
  52. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    March 5, 2014 at 9:40 am
    Wait. Did Gerry just say he`s a homo and a republican? No wonder every one likes him so much.

    Disclaimer-I simply repeated what Gerry said about his sexual orientation and in no way is the above comment sarcastic. We`re all friends here. Don`t be haten.
  53. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    March 5, 2014 at 3:00 pm
    normalfreak2-It`s been amended hundreds of times
    To normalfreak, 27 = `hundreds`.

    tuapui-should be allowed to have whatever dangerous poo they want but must be licensed and certified fit to operate them. Like cars for instance.
    Uh, you do not have to be licensed or certified to purchase/own a car.

    SmagBoy1-NO ONE bitches about people trying to make them safer.
    Is there any need to make a screwdriver safer? A firearm is about as simplistic as you can get. And yes, research continues to make both firearms, and ammunition, safer.

    patchouly-don`t listen to things objectively
    When a liberal shows up to a debate with no facts, no data and no clue, there is no need be objective to call BS. This guy was typical lib: `Feels` over facts.
  54. Profile photo of WhoSaidWhat
    WhoSaidWhat Male 30-39
    262 posts
    March 7, 2014 at 8:32 pm
    Firearms are not dangerous; only the loose nut behind he trigger is dangerous. I own a few handguns. Will I shoot you with one? Sure, if you threaten me, my family, or my property; two in the chest, one in the head, and dead men tell no tales. Act like you`re supposed to, and you`ll have no problem with me, or my firearms. A gun is no more dangerous than any other tool; its all in the manner in which it is used.

Leave a Reply