Gun Debate Doesn`t Go Well For Anti-Gun Proponent

Submitted by: vonKaiser 3 years ago in
"> " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">
Doesn"t matter which side you stand, Keith Morgan wasn"t prepared for this debate
There are 52 comments:
Male 911
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,747
normalfreak2-[quote]It`s been amended hundreds of times[/quote]
To normalfreak, 27 = `hundreds`.

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

SmagBoy1-[quote]NO ONE bitches about people trying to make them safer. [/quote]
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-[quote]don`t listen to things objectively [/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 316
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 94
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.
0
Reply
Male 418
@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.

0
Reply
Male 38,489

Patchouly, [quote]"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"[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
[quote]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.[/quote]


0
Reply
Male 4,746
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.
0
Reply
Male 6,687
@ 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.
0
Reply
Male 6,687
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.
0
Reply
Male 418
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!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Banning guns will totally work.
Just like banning marijuana.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
"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.
0
Reply
Male 316
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!
0
Reply
Male 38,489

Banning guns will totally work.
Just like banning marijuana.
0
Reply
Male 4,075
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
0
Reply
Male 17,512
The link didn`t work for me.

I found this though, Link
0
Reply
Male 1,502
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.
0
Reply
Male 820
Ahhhh. Lefty got his tail spanked. He about crapped his pants when the dude told him he was packing.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@auburn

[quote]Many constitutional scholars agree on that. [/quote]
Well clearly you`re just interpreting that.

XD
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Smagboy:

The comma is there to separate the clauses. Many constitutional scholars agree on that.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

[quote]HumanAction, sigh, they`re part of the same sentence.[/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
HumanAction, sigh, they`re part of the same sentence. I mean, seriously. Okay, I`m out. :-)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

[quote]you have to look at both X and Y together.[/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

[quote]Ah, interpretation.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
"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... -_-
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Smagboy:

The second amendment makes way for THE PEOPLE to have arms IN SPITE OF a well regulated militia.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
[quote]2. One reason that your right to own car keys shall not be...

See. There is no interpretation necessary to reach the second conclusion.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 7,747
chalket-[quote]That is reason enough to fund education.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,747
SmagBoy1-[quote]Being as they`re required for operation of a car, the right to own car keys shall not be infringed[/quote]
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.)
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"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.
0
Reply
Male 7,747
SmagBoy1-[quote]words don`t really matter.[/quote]
Yeah, you`re right. The words `the right of the people` could, in no way, be interpreted to mean the right of the people.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

What exactly are you interpreting?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@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.
0
Reply
Male 38,489

The only thing a government fears is a well armed population. That is reason enough to own a gun.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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."
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

[quote]Well, the 2nd was actually for a "well regulated militia", but, hey, words don`t really matter.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 38,489

Grenade launchers!

0
Reply
Male 2,521
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,521
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,747
normalfreak2-[quote]There are valid arguments for removing guns from society.[/quote]
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-[quote]The second amendment was for a standing militia.[/quote]
See, making your ignorance evident from the start.

This is going to be fun.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Anyway, the link, in short, explains how the second amendment was intended for people to bear arms, IN SPITE of a well regulated militia.
0
Reply
Male 883
@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.
0
Reply
Male 6,687
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.

0
Reply
Male 2,579
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.
0
Reply
Male 32
Looks like the lib on the right got his hindend handed to him.
0
Reply
Male 108
Link: Gun Debate Doesn`t Go Well For Anti-Gun Proponent [Rate Link] - Doesn`t matter which side you stand, Keith Morgan wasn`t prepared for this debate
0
Reply