I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Gun Control - An American's Opinion

Hits: 10152 | Rating: (3.1) | Category: Misc. | Added by: kitteh9lives
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
SilverThread
Male, 30-39, Western US
 3368 Posts
Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:42:35 PM
I wanted to stand and applaud him myself.

Suicism
Male, 18-29, Western US
 3672 Posts
Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:45:31 PM
Since I'm not shy about trashing i-a-b functionality when it falls short of basic expectation, I'd like to extend my appreciation that the sharing functionality has been restored so that I've been able to e-mail this posting to a friend.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Friday, February 08, 2013 8:06:34 AM
@HumanAction- it's cool, I don't think I was entirely clear.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33910 Posts
Friday, February 08, 2013 6:26:18 AM

I like the pictures posted better than all this talking.

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 5605 Posts
Friday, February 08, 2013 12:06:12 AM
I think this is where I have trouble, you all have rights, some of which get taken away if you fail to comply with the 'rules' you set as a country. but for some reason you feel that this particular right is more precious than the others- so should not be taken away no matter what. All I can see is that you apply the same standard and set rules- rules than would in fact enable a citizen to act as a militia- safety and competence standards etc... yet this is apparently a bad idea. Yet if having guns is to protect you against the government surely it would make sense that you all know how to use 'em- thus back to cars- you pass a test to show you know how to use one and are required to maintain the vehicle. It just seems there is a dissonance here...

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10238 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:38:09 PM
There is a distinction to be made in this line of argument

Rights are automatic. You are granted them at birth (or at least when you become an adult). They can be taken away later as a form of punishment.

Privileges are granted based on certain conditions. Also they can generally be revoked at any time.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13933 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:13:16 PM
Yup- that liberty thing again. How is that going for all those incarcerated in your prisons??

Works for me!

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 7:48:23 PM
@sbeelz

Ah, sorry about that; I had misunderstood what you meant.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:39:28 PM
I'm not saying that I think that the 2nd amendment only grants the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I'm saying that the right to keep and bear arms was granted because the founding fathers saw the importance of a militia for the purpose of national defense. Although the Declaration of Independence does pretty explicitly demonstrate that the founding fathers recognized the potential need for the American People to rise up in arms in the future, just as they did against the British government. I just think they probably foresaw militias being the driving force behind such a rebellion, as they did not establish a national standing army when they drafted the constitution. But yeah, again, I agree that an armed populace is a very important counterbalance to the power of an armed government.

Keggar
Male, 50-59, Western US
 54 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:34:59 PM
To all the stupid Americans out there from a very knowledgeable immigrant. Wake up America and educate yourselves. Use your brain and don't fall for liberal garbage feelgoodisms!

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:07:37 PM
As for what the founding fathers intended, it's right there in the 2nd Amednment- "a well regulated militia."

Not quite. From Justice Scalia in DC v. Heller:

"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase 'the militia' in the prefatory clause... Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to 'keep and bear Arms' in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as 'the people'."

This is the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:06:14 PM
@HumanAction- I'm definitely for arming down the cops.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:05:12 PM
@Gerry- As I said, I don't support denying people the right to bear arms for offenses that have nothing to do with violence, such as drug possession. And no, background checks won't stop guns from falling into the hands of all criminals- there will still be a black market. But it will certainly make it harder (and more expensive) for many people who have proven themselves to be dangerous to obtain guns. They won't eliminate gun violence, but they certainly will reduce it. I think that the minor inconvenience to responsible gun owners is worth it.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:04:51 PM
@sbeelz

Military forces can and are used against private citizens in some cases- just look at Egypt and Syria right now.

It's a little bit of a different issue that stems from the psychology of it. In those places, the military acts as the police as well. We all have a tendency to view our opponents as "enemies." As such, the US military views Us citizens in a completely different light than does the police. It's almost a superiority complex (all my opinion).

That being said, the Constitution does not allow for the use of military assets against US civilians (NDAA somewhat freed that up).

Are you really comfortable with those weapons in the hands of private citizens?

Not at all; I'm saying that we should have the option to arm ourselves to the extent that the police does. Either we can arm "up" or they can arm "down".

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:58:57 PM
As for what the founding fathers intended, it's right there in the 2nd Amednment- "a well regulated militia." They never envisioned a centralized standing army for national defense, so an armed populace was necessary for national defense. I do believe that allowing citizens to bear arms IS currently an important counterbalance to armed state forces, but I don't agree that's what the 2nd Amendment says.

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33910 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:46:13 PM

"I support Criminal Background Checks"

If they're a criminal do you really think your rules will stop them?
Laws didn't stop them from becoming criminals, now did it.

A complete waste of time for "safety" but it does allow
the gov'ment to deny some people who may have had minor
offenses in the past. Remember, pot can be a federal crime.
But I'd trust my stoner brother over some squeeky clean
religious nut job any day.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:45:13 PM
@HumanAction- While it is true that police are more often used to oppress people in fascist states (hell, they're being used to do so RIGHT NOW in the US), Military forces can and are used against private citizens in some cases- just look at Egypt and Syria right now.
Even so, police forces have fully automatic weapons, even if the average cop doesn't carry one. Are you really comfortable with those weapons in the hands of private citizens? (Personally, I'm not comfortable with them in the hands of cops, but that's another argument all together)

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:18:12 PM
@sbeelz

So Let's cut the BS- almost everybody can agree that the government is well within its rights to restrict the types of arms private citizens can own.

From my understanding, the Founders intended this Amendment to serve as a counter balance to the government.

First off, the government means all police forces, not the military. In the past (even Nazi Germany), governments attack civilians with police forces rather than military forces (plus, do we really think the US military would attack US civilians?).

With that in mind, I believe that civilians should have the capability to own weapons equivalent to those owned by police forces. If the police can have a 30-rd mag, flashbangs, riot shields, etc, then so shall we.

My two cents at least.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:14:32 PM
@madduck

but very very weasely

This is how the Supreme Court has ruled; it is not just my opinion.

So you lock people up for things which do not endanger others, thus ensuring they lose status and yet will not allow a measure of control to partially deny a right when full possession of that right could prove harmful to others

Pretty much. I am against most laws, by the way, though I will admit that this is currently how the system works. Obviously, it's a biased view, but it is reasonable.

if you cannot see properly and do not have motor control then you would be a danger to yourself and others if you fired it

I agree that people should take responsibility for their actions, and act responsibly. However, old ladies who cannot see over the steering wheel are still driving. The government is not good at determining proficiency.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:12:52 PM
...That being said, I DO support universal criminal background checks. I don't know just what types of convictions currently prevent people from owning guns bought from retailers, but personally, I feel like the only crimes that SHOULD prevent a person from owning guns are violent crimes, robberies involving guns (even where nobody is hurt), or acts of gross criminal negligence. The idea that one should be able to buy a gun after they have proven, through their own behavior, that they are a danger to others is absurd. I find it ironic that while it's largely Republicans pushing against background checks, it's also Republicans pushing to maintain VOTING BANS for convicted felons in some states.

sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:08:01 PM
I find myself somewhere in the middle on this issue. I agree with gun rights advocates that the 2nd amendment is important. It IS easier for a government to exert complete authoritarian control over an unarmed populace. HOWEVER, the argument that the 2nd Amendment means that all arms control is unconstitutional is ridiculous. I don't hear the NRA demanding that the ban on fully automatic weapons be lifted. I don't hear them arguing for the right of all Americans to own an M1 Abrams tank. So Let's cut the BS- almost everybody can agree that the government is well within its rights to restrict the types of arms private citizens can own.

That being said, I DO NOT support an assault weapons ban. Primarily because it is a token action that will do very little to curb actual violence. "Assault weapons" that are currently legal are involved in a very small percentage of gun crime. Plus, it's not like the ban would apply to semi-auto rifles that don't look like mili

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13291 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:57:56 PM
If you cannot see properly and do not have motor control you probably can't load a gun.

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 5605 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:18:25 PM
Mmm- interesting way of arguing... but very very weasely. So you lock people up for things which do not endanger others, thus ensuring they lose status and yet will not allow a measure of control to partially deny a right when full possession of that right could prove harmful to others. I still use the idea of very old ladies.. chiefly because that way I remove the idea of a value judgement but focus on safety- if you cannot see properly and do not have motor control then you would be a danger to yourself and others if you fired it.. like I said- I ma trying to grasp the logic...

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:01:16 PM
But I am sure you just said ...... so how come you can lose some rights- but not others?

The premise of this is false. As Justice Scalia has stated, the Bill of Rights, when mentioning "the people," refers to MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY. Prisoners are not members of the political community, and as such, are not guaranteed the same protection. This reasoning is consistent with other "faults" often argued, such as "what about the slaves!"

Many other liberties that are not part of the Bill of Rights have been taken away because they are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 5605 Posts
Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:49:19 PM
But I am sure you just said ...... so how come you can lose some rights- but not others?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.