3 ms·

You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the

by xaviorm 13y ago

You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.

pstuart 13y ago
> You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
- tekromancr 13y ago
  Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
  - pstuart 13y ago
    There's more: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/article... But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
- talmand 13y ago
  First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults. You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact". I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that. By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
    - talmand 13y ago
      And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly? Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious. If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
      - pstuart 13y ago
        You're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment? That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here> I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be. The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do. No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.

by xaviorm 13y ago

pstuart 13y ago

> You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?

tekromancr 13y ago
Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
- pstuart 13y ago
  There's more: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/article... But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
talmand 13y ago
First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults. You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact". I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that. By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.
  - talmand 13y ago
    And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly? Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious. If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      You're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment? That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here> I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be. The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do. No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.