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

Jon Stewart On Gun Control

Hits: 10263 | Rating: (3.0) | Category: Misc. | Added by: kitteh9lives
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, January 14, 2013 6:13:50 AM
@Finker

please clarify how the police took military control over the citizens and the army without an overall failure to resist the outcome

I'd be happy to clarify. Your error is that you assume the police took control of the military, which they did not. Rather, the military was deployed fighting a multiple front war. Other than relatively few officers, most enlisted men in the Wehrmacht were unaware of the atrocities being committed by the SS - a police force. I hope this helps to clear things up.

@Bakcagain21

I repeat my statement Justices authoritativeness relies on what's politically prudent always

While it's a lovely thing to say, merely repeating it does not make it any more true.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013 4:45:25 PM
@Finker: It's Obama who's trying to tell parents how to protect their children, not Bush, not anyone else, it's OBAMA.

His kids? Armed security.
YOUR kids? Gun Free Zone.

By "your" I mean America, not you specifically, eh?

Finker
Male, 40-49, Europe
 506 Posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:55:30 PM
@CrakrJak, I look at your picture below and wonder if you really think all schools should have greater numbers of armed guards per head than the president, and if taxes are going to pay for it? Does your view vary if it is Obma or not?

Finker
Male, 40-49, Europe
 506 Posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:47:51 PM
@HumanAction, please clarify how the police took military control over the citizens and the army without an overall failure to resist the outcome - that was my point.

Bakcagain21
Male, 18-29, Europe
 553 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:45:26 PM
@5cats I'm not saying overturn the 2nd Amendment I clarified what J.Stewart said.

Want to keep status quo go ahead. Want to say there are soo many guns out there you wouldn't get them all so people have the right to own guns to protect themselves once again go ahead. Want to say Assualt weapons, machine guns etc can't be owned legally or mental patients are already restricted no issue, anti-gun lobby does say some crap. Want to point out removing guns in Oz resulted in less suicides but relatively same amount of murders go for it. Argue it all on it's merits. 2nd amendment is about having a armed militia not having a gun at home. You can remove guns from homes without changing that, or keep guns at home without changing that. Just stop quoting the 2nd amendment an archaic statement which can not legitimately be shoe horned into the debate. It's a weak form of arguing on this issue.
I repeat my statement Justices authoritativeness relies on what's politically prudent always

rosieodonnel
Male, 18-29, Western US
 27 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:15:11 AM
@HolyGod Police and security guards are not the same thing.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:11:36 AM
@bakcagain: You make a valid point: laws can change.
However: You want to overturn the 2nd? Go ahead! DO IT!
Don't mince about PRETENDING you're not trying to!
Get the support, take a VOTE and overturn the RIGHTS of OTHER Americans! You already have the right to "not own a gun" and simply wish to FORCE others to agree (and comply) with you.

Using cops and soldiers... armed with guns... oh teh irony!

(Yeah yeah! You're from Europe, I'm from Canada. You still know what I'm talking about.)

rosieodonnel
Male, 18-29, Western US
 27 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:10:47 AM
I just want to point out that assault rifles have been banned before. It didn't really do anything.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:43:15 AM
@Bakcagain21

The creation of the federal reserve is a vastly different event than the one we are debating. Regarding the federal bank, it was an issue of creating a new law and was heavily contested. On the other hand, we are now discussing the revocation or at least partial revocation of an existing amendment that was not nearly so contested when created.

The problem with your statement that the Supreme Court cannot know what the framers meant is that the Supreme Court is the only entity entrusted with and given the authority to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, if they state that a Constitutional segment means something, then that is what it means - there is no longer room for debate.

Relative to the Justices, we are laymen. Our opinions and interpretations are meaningless because they are the authority on the matter. Therefore, my argument from authority is proper.

Bakcagain21
Male, 18-29, Europe
 553 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:24:56 AM
@HumanAction "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."
That according to the gun lobby isn't clear and it implies that your standard citizen has the right to a gun for your individual protection. Another reading could be that everyone is entitled to one rifle and 50 bullets of ammunition which was the swiss model for years. Could mean everyone is allowed to join a militia which stores guns centrally only letting them out for practice.
Yes they were so nice to write it down, but it's not exactly clear for the purposes you are saying. You and the supreme court can not know what framers meant. The Supreme court does what is prudent or politically acceptable at the time of a case.
Ban guns don't decide that from other arguments. Just stop claiming authority from a elevated law, which was not made with modern firearms in mind. As not me, u the court know what the

Bakcagain21
Male, 18-29, Europe
 553 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:16:00 AM
@HumanAction Madison vetoed the bank of America in 1814 and allowed it in 1816 having learned it was necessary with how America had changed. He was a Framer who knew that what he meant when he was instrumental in writing the constitution. He had campaigned against a central bank until war with he British made it required) The supreme court in McCulloch v. Maryland invoked the within spirit of the constitution decision to say obviously the constitution allowed the power to make a central bank. John Marshall the lead justic had been against a central bank when he was a framer changed with the times.
Framers knew what they wanted at the time. When times changed so did their opinions and the law get's updated. The Supreme court does whatever the make up of the court believes is right, I've studied it.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:27:52 AM
@Bakcagain21

However, if this is the argument that you are presenting to @Cajun, then the argument boils down to this:

I know exactly what the Founding Fathers said; they were so kind as to write it down;

On the other hand, you speculate about what you think they meant or would have meant.

How is it that you consider these arguments to be equivalent? My hand holds the actual words, along with the supportive Supreme Court interpretations. Your hand holds nothing more that "No way they would have done that now-a-days!"

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4226 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:29:12 AM
Yeah, a whole ten minutes of reasonable discussion, considering both sides, and what do we see here? Whatever.

Bakcagain21
Male, 18-29, Europe
 553 Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:23:23 AM
@Cajun "That's like saying how modern day medical science is sufficient for the point being made about how effective modern medicine is. In case you didn't know, only 1/20 gun injuries are fatal."

No it's not a glock can have anywhere between 8 and 33 bullet cartridges. And can easily fire everyone of them within a minute(and more). A musket with a lot practice you'd fire 4 shots in a minute. It's comparing bicycles which you don't need insurance, with car's which you do. The danger potential has increased which is why it's stupid quoting really old laws which didn't comprehend the technological changes. The road laws sufficient for horses and carriages had to be updated for car's as car's are more advanced. That's the point I was explaining which you don't get either. I don't give a poo about deaths, or injuries(which would be higher then in muskets day) I'm saying make arguments that don't rely on archaic laws, they are out there.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10238 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 11:08:42 PM
Shouldn't our children at least be as safe as our president?


They should, and by every measure they are. Our schools are for education not for panopticon TSA checkpoints.

MrPeabody
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 1795 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 11:04:40 PM
@El_Chinche
Most College campuses already have police.
If we can do this for community colleges, then why not for other schools?

Go to Google, click Images, then type "Campus Police"

Here is some of what you will find:






jak22
Male, 18-29, Western US
 154 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 4:07:55 PM
finally someone gets at the real issue. its not black and white, and there are numerous factors that come into play into an issue like this.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16954 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 3:29:44 PM
El Chinche: Shouldn't our children at least be as safe as our president?

And if more guns make people less safe, then please explain this.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13291 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 2:54:04 PM
@El_Chinche

Yes and a place with only armed military and police isn't a police state. I don't know about your school but my high school felt alot like a prison to me although I went to trade school.

El_Chinche
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 511 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 2:09:00 PM


El_Chinche
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 511 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 2:01:34 PM


InTheNameOf
Male, 30-39, Western US
 335 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:44:17 PM
Well, he is usually pretty funny....just not this time.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5000 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:28:54 PM
5Cats

"@HolyGod: What do you think a "gun free zone" is? They take the gun away from the security guards!"

I'll reply to this just because it is completely factually incorrect.

Columbine was a gun free zone. They had an armed guard.

My mall is a gun free zone. I see armed police in there all the time.

"Gun free zones" do not apply to security personnel and police.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13933 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:26:41 PM
@El_Chinche You got it exactly backwards. The situation you depict is the RESULT of giving up our freedoms. The armed guards are only necessary because we passed unconstitutional laws that DISARMED the faculty and staff.

Of course, I will allow the possibility that your post was sarcastic, but given the political bent of the vast majority of the posters here, I consider that to be highly unlikely. Correct me if I'm wrong.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Friday, January 11, 2013 12:22:35 PM
I have not heard a single person say lets take guns away from guards, or police, or the military.

@HolyGod: What do you think a "gun free zone" is? They take the gun away from the security guards!
>Virginia Tech: Gun free! No armed security = one man killed all those people un-opposed! He didn't have "high capacity magazines" either, he just re-loaded! No one there to stop him.

>Newton: Gun free zone! NO SRO = single gunman had no opposition.

>Aurora Theater: Gun free zone! He cose THAT theater because of it. Get it yet?

The gun-grabbers are the one who demand "gun free zones" AND try to pass laws telling YOU where you can and cannot carry your weapon. Why? Do the criminals obey these laws? ffs. The ONLY reason is to take other people's rights away.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 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.