John Stossel on 20/20 ... 10 myths about gun control

I have no problem with gay rights. You need to stop wishing we would be like your country. Our founders specifically did not want to be like your country. We Americans are proud of that fact.

 

Dude, I'm a US citizen and USMC vet. Your attempted ad hominem fails.

 

My misunderstanding. Because you are often comparing us to other countries, I mistakenly thought you were from UK. Thank you for your service and swearing to uphold our constitution.

 

he doesn't support the Constitution's 2nd A. He likes to compare Rights to entitlements granted by the government. He also wants only himself to be armed. He'll shoot Americans, he has stated so on previous debates with me. I can produce those discussions for proof.
But he does love Australia and hates America..so you were correct in your hypothesis

 

It will be the US military putting us US citizens into concentration camps (they have in the past, and will in the future).

I fail to see the need for all the nationalistic soldier worship...

 

It could simply be a mindset........ I know plenty of returning vets that would never ever fire upon friend, neighbor, or family. But there are those who would and I don't really think they can help themselves.

 

I compare the US to other countries because we use a lot of comparative concepts like "good", "bad", "free" and "unacceptable" on this forum. None of those concepts make any sense without a point of comparison to provide perspective.

 

This from someone who believes that the Constitution is worthless because all "rights" are "god-given", but apparently only to people within the US...

As for only wanting myself to be armed, I don't own a firearm.
As for shooting Americans, that's a misrepresentation of the oath of enlistment to engage enemies "foreign and domestic".

The pettiness of this personal attack, and the cowardice of addressing it to another poster to avoid giving me the opportunity to respond certainly outlines whose character is really questionable here.

Stay classy.

 

He's married to an aussie with two children of dual citizenship. He wants to turn this place into Australia than to keep it America. I suspect a hidden agenda at work in the gun threads

 

More paranoid delusions?

Perhaps you should stop obsessing over me. As flattering as it is, and as appropriate as it might be for a gay rights thread, I'm perfectly content with my wife. And, frankly, it's getting a little pathetic.

 

I do not agree to the personal attacks he has given you. I do not care about your personal life because it is none of my business. However, I will completely disagree with you on the gun debate. Possession of a firearm is a civil liberty, it is stated in our constitution to guarantee that right and so far it has worked. These rights are the rights of all men who abide to the laws of their nations, however, our constitution has preserved our right to own firearms as apposed to places like UK and Australia. The bill of rights are rights all men should have but are often taken by their governments for their own 'safety.'

 

Not sure I agree with the "so far it has worked" unless the goal is to have the most homicides per capita.

As for the 2A, do you honestly believe gun owners today represent a "well regulated militia" as outlined by the framers of the Constitution?

 

The gun owners are not the militia, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment gives the states a right to a militia and the people the right to bear arms. So far gun control has not worked out, in fact it has increased our homicide rate within metropolitan areas, not rural areas where guns are a commonplace.

 

Let me get this straight...
You believe that the founding fathers were talking about two separate and unrelated topics - and not only in the same amendment, in THE SAME SENTENCE?!

I believe the founding fathers had much greater skill than that when it came to grammar, sentence structure and composition.

 

SCOTUS has already ruled that the militia and gun rights are separate issues. While "codified" in the same sentence, The Right to keep and bear arms is only joined by the right to form militias.

 

Hmmm:

In that one we have:
1 - Prohibition against a state religion
2 - Right of free exercise of religion
3 - Right to freedom of speech
4 - Right to freedom of the press
5 - Right to peaceably assemble
6 - Right to petition the government

Six separate topics all in one amendment, in fact all in one sentence, and no one seems to argue that freedom of speech only applies to the press, or that freedom of assembly is only applicable to religious groups . . .

 

Bottom line is that YOU are solely responsible for your life and those of your loved ones. Take whatever actions you deem necessary, or not, to fulfill this responsibility but don't presume the right to dictate to me.

 

Considering that standards for English grammar were not present at the time, yes i do believe that. Considering that the first amendment does the same in giving several rights within the same sentence. They were intelligent men, and saw that the people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, and States needed militias to protect themselves from foreign attackers such as Indians or foreign armies.

 

Sure, and look at how well each of those specific concepts are outlined so that there can be no misinterpretation... Now explain how the same people who were able to do this were talking about separate concepts in the 2A but suddenly lost the ability to formulate their thoughts intelligibly.

Obviously false.

 

BS. They met and exceeded the gram met standards in every part of the Constitution. You are claiming that only the 2A was so poorly written as to me misinterpreted.

 

Still, the fact that the framers did put multiple separate and unrelated concepts into one sentence in the bill of rights in other amendments is part of what the supreme court used when they interpreted the meaning of the second amendment and ruled that the two clauses in the second amendment were separate rights and that the second clause was not dependent on the first. They also used similar legal writings of the time, and if you read the supreme court ruling on these cases, you'll see numerous references to similar phrasings where the clauses are similarly written, and those laws also clearly don't intend for the operative clause to be dependent on the justification clause.

Here is an interesting article written by a UCLA professor, peer reviewed and published in the NYU Law Review that provides a lot of similar references and a really good explanation on the second amendment. It is worth a read to see how actual constitutional law professionals consider the second amendement:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

 

Gish gallop.
By definition, an "operative clause" and it's corresponding " justification clause" are related.

Please site what other portion of the BoR you believe contains operative and justification clauses that are somehow unrelated.

 

good post . The review was well written. You will always find people in the US that see to think they can trust the government to solve all of the people's issues and no longer have a use for any or all of our Rights.
They are convinced that if they give one up, the rest will remain untouched.
What I find amazing is that the Right to possess a firearm follows the free speech clause. Sort of like it was placed there to support the 1st A.
You take away the means to defend one's Rights, you no longer have Rights, and no way to get them back ....or even ensure those protections, once they have been stolen.

 

Paranoid delusions about total bans have very little relevance in adult conversations about gun control.

 

Wrong, capitalization and punctuation are incorrect throughout the document. Not their fault but that is the case. It states two rights given to the people and to the states.