Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 173
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: Why should I care what your opinion is about the 2nd Amendment?

  1. #1
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,970
    Thanks
    1887

    From
    Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.

    Why should I care what your opinion is about the 2nd Amendment?

    In another thread, Chief took it upon himself to bless the Earth with his opinion on what you need and don't need vis a vis the 2nd Amendment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chief
    In my opinion, the AR-15 is just not as useful as a handgun for day to day personal safety. Unless you live in Israel or something I guess. You can't predict when you'll need it, and you're probably not going to want to carry it 24/7.
    I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how bad it is, but why extend and impose that opinion on other people by pushing your opinion into some kind of legislative capacity? We may or may not be interested in your opinion. But I'm pretty damn sure that, to a person, we are NOT interested in turning your opinion into legislation. This is echoed later on by Cicero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cicero
    It doesn't matter, to me, why you believe you need (or don't need) an AR-15 (provided it's for a lawful purpose...and murder is not lawful). Your assessment of need doesn't govern me or my actions. My assessment of need indicated that an AR-15 was necessary to me, and if that were not true then I would not have bought one. I don't have to "justify" my need to you, to @Hollywood , to @NiteGuy , or to any other person here (or elsewhere). That is my right. I don't need your "permission" (or anyone else's) to buy or own one of these rifles.
    Do you see how arrogant it is to think, believe, or wish your opinion into legislation that circumvents an amendment that recognizes a God given right to self defense?

    And do you see how effectively, thoroughly, and completely a 2nd Amendment supporter rightfully shuns and turns his back on such arrogance?
    Last edited by Angel of Dearth; 8th February 2013 at 03:38 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Stefan Bandera's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,603
    Thanks
    2572

    From
    Southington Connecticut
    Seriously Dearth there is enough arrogance, hyperbole, intransience and downright bull headedness from both sides. You may not be interested in turning someone else’s opinion into legislation just as they have no desire to turn yours into legislation.

    Finally if you do not care about his opinion why do you bother creating an entire hread ?
    Last edited by Stefan Bandera; 8th February 2013 at 03:51 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,970
    Thanks
    1887

    From
    Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Bandera View Post
    Seriously Dearth there is enough arrogance, hyperbole, intransience and downright bull headedness from both sides. You may not be interested in turning someone else’s opinion into legislation just as they have no desire to turn yours into legislation.

    Finally if you do not care about his opinion why do you bother creating an entire
    My opinion already IS legislation. It's called the 2nd Amendment. So I and a nation of hundreds of millions would appreciate keeping an unsolicited opinion out of the legislative process.

    OP about it
    is what you meant to say.

    I don't really care about his opinion. I care deeply that his ill conceived opinion is fed into the national dialog of opinion which is massaged and molded by Feinstein, Boxer, Obama, Chris Rock, Chris Dorner, Eric Holder, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Cass Sunstein and a host of other sophomores and that that dialog is used as a foundation upon which new legislation is made.

    I care because his opinion is irrelevant to the law. I care because millions of other people also feel their opinion should have some bearing on this law. They're wrong, but they also think they live in a democracy and should therefore be able to change a law to restrict freedom. That's what a democracy does. And that's why we don't have one. That's why we have a constitutional republic not a democracy. And it's not mox nix.
    Last edited by Angel of Dearth; 8th February 2013 at 03:51 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    13,846
    Thanks
    4892

    From
    Vancouver, BC
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel of Dearth View Post
    My opinion already IS legislation. It's called the 2nd Amendment. So I [...] would appreciate keeping an unsolicited opinion out of the legislative process.
    How kind of hypocritical of you lol

  5. #5
    Senior Member Stefan Bandera's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,603
    Thanks
    2572

    From
    Southington Connecticut
    You just want to rant so you created another thread the 0ne milliometh and fift one to rant. That is your right as it is their right to try and get therir opinion into legislation and/or to chnage legislation.

    So you now told everyone for the one millioleth and 6th time that you disagree with them.

  6. #6
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,970
    Thanks
    1887

    From
    Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    How kind of hypocritical of you lol
    How so? The 2nd Amendment predates my opinion by over 200 years.

  7. #7
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,970
    Thanks
    1887

    From
    Here, there, Savoir Faire is everywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Bandera View Post
    You just want to rant so you created another thread the 0ne milliometh and fift one to rant. That is your right as it is their right to try and get therir opinion into legislation and/or to chnage legislation.

    So you now told everyone for the one millioleth and 6th time that you disagree with them.
    See, that's where you're wrong. You all are entitled to your opinion.

    But this is America. And although we have forgotten, I'm sure we will remember one day that we are a nation of laws not of men. A nation where opinion about "needs" is law is a nation of men, not laws.

    Your opinion about what I need and don't need in terms of guns is irrelevant. It should not even be up for legislative debate. It's as if you are talking about what grade of gasoline you "need" for your diesel truck.

    May I offer a suggestion to help move the discussion along? Talk about what your rights are with respect to the 2nd Amendment. I'd love to hear Chief's opinion on what your rights are. THAT opinion IS up for legislative debate!
    Last edited by Angel of Dearth; 8th February 2013 at 04:34 PM.

  8. #8
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4660

    From
    Vertiform City
    Here, allow me to translate.

    Right now, we have a bunch of people (some right here on this forum) who don't think much of the 2nd Amendment and wouldn't mind seeing it changed.

    However, they don't want to go through all the trouble of a formal constitutional amendment (chances are slim it would pass anyway, considering it needs a 2/3 agreement), so they use the partisan majority in Congress, but in doing so they conveniently wave their hand over the part of the rules that say "thou shalt not do this".

    Face it, our Constitution has become an inconvenient legislative roadblock for some. Some seem to think it has little value in the modern world.
    Thanks from American

  9. #9
    Senior Member teamosil's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,976
    Thanks
    530

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Here, allow me to translate.

    Right now, we have a bunch of people (some right here on this forum) who don't think much of the 2nd Amendment and wouldn't mind seeing it changed.

    However, they don't want to go through all the trouble of a formal constitutional amendment (chances are slim it would pass anyway, considering it needs a 2/3 agreement), so they use the partisan majority in Congress, but in doing so they conveniently wave their hand over the part of the rules that say "thou shalt not do this".
    I'm not against people having guns in general, but I don't think the second amendment belongs in the constitution. I would rather have a constitution that lays out the high level, timeless, principles, not the application of those principles to their particular time and place. For example, rather than listing off the things the government can't search- which is inevitably going to become outdated constantly as communication develops- they should have laid out a right to privacy generally. Instead of saying that Congress can't grant titles of nobility, they should have laid out the principle behind it- that no citizen can be legally superior to another by the circumstance of their birth. Instead of including a right to bear arms, they should have included a right to self defense. All those things are more like policies than principles and IMO it doesn't make sense to include specific policies for things other than how the government itself will be structured and elected and whatnot in the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Face it, our Constitution has become an inconvenient legislative roadblock for some. Some seem to think it has little value in the modern world.
    You can't conflate believing the constitution means what the judicial branch says it means with not seeing much value in the constitution. Civil Rights organizations that fight to keep our constitutional rights as strong as possible consistently rely more on interpretations of the constitution than on things that are plainly obvious from its text. The interpretations generally make the constitution stronger, not weaker. For example, there is no passage in the constitution that says that the government can't tap your phone without a warrant, but that is a constitutional right you have. Without those interpretations, the right to privacy would be far more limited. Free speech as well. The constitution makes no mention of internet posts for example, but they're protected. If we were to whittle our constitutional rights back down to just what is explicitly stated in the constitution that would be a massive rollback of our freedom.
    Thanks from Stefan Bandera

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    20,545
    Thanks
    2630

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel of Dearth View Post
    In another thread, Chief took it upon himself to bless the Earth with his opinion on what you need and don't need vis a vis the 2nd Amendment:
    Nope, suggest you learn to read.

    I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how bad it is, but why extend and impose that opinion on other people by pushing your opinion into some kind of legislative capacity? We may or may not be interested in your opinion. But I'm pretty damn sure that, to a person, we are NOT interested in turning your opinion into legislation. This is echoed later on by Cicero.
    Again, reading fail on your part.

    Do you see how arrogant it is to think, believe, or wish your opinion into legislation that circumvents an amendment that recognizes a God given right to self defense?

    And do you see how effectively, thoroughly, and completely a 2nd Amendment supporter rightfully shuns and turns his back on such arrogance?
    I see that you are pretty arrogant to think that God gives a shit about whether or not you have an AR-15. I also see that some of our 2nd ammendment supporters need to read what's being posted and not allow their imagination to wander while they read.

Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed