This is a Serious Thread
- 1 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 03:58:18 ID:2e99vS7O0
- Hello. This is as Serious Thread where we talk about Serious
Like how yesterday the American Supreme Court 5-to-4 decided that the 2nd
Amendment protects individual hand-gun ownership. Bush's supreme court appointments
might end up being the ugliest scar on his legacy if things continue like this.
Of course, nothing is less Serious than politics, so feel free to talk about something more
- 2 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:00:34 ID:0glzmcGC0
- Serious thread is serious. Serious thread should be more serious and have serious link to serious news article. Does this seriously mean that I can seriously go and seriously buy a serious handgun right now if I seriously wanted to?
- 3 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:00:42 ID:JdkHmskA0
- SCOTUS made the right decision. The scary part is that it was 5-4 rather than unanimous.
- 4 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:02:32 ID:ZzNvXw6S0
- It concerns me how many 5-4 rulings we are getting on important issues, such as this, if we changed one of the judges and it became 4-5 on these issues, we would have serious problems
- 5 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:11:48 ID:2e99vS7O0
Does that really surprise you? The 2nd Amendment hasn't been a huge legal
controversy for no reason, you know. As it is, the ruling seriously upsets
a lot of people who are still sane.
- 6 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:25:34 ID:5SwASrlB0
So you want only criminals to have guns, correct?
- 7 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:27:15 ID:JdkHmskA0
Are you saying the sane people would prefer the ruling having
gone the other way?
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
- 8 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:28:40 ID:ZzNvXw6S0
The language of the amendment itself doesn't strike me as being difficult, however the controversy is people's views on it. Those who ruled against it are basically saying that something in the bill of rights no longer applies today.
Another concern I have is that many people have a distorted view on guns because the media is bias against them, refusing to carry stories where they are not used in crimes, or ignoring that a gun was used to stop the crime if they do report.
Here is a very good article on such bias http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagim019.php
- 9 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:52:52 ID:2e99vS7O0
I don't see why the "defensive use of guns" is something we should protect.
You're basically conceding that the USA is a dangerous place full of armed people
and that the best way to keep oneself safe is to arm oneself.
That's not my vision of a civilized state.
I can't think of any good ethical justification for the private ownership of handguns.
You're basically saying that America is such a dangerous place that the state needs to
have a constitutional amendment to protect the right of citizens to arm themselves against
other citizens. I don't see that as very sane.
- 10 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 04:54:30 ID:sOwHjfPH0
- I do think it's a little disturbing, but not surprising.
Keep in mind, the world was a different place back then.
Now before you jump on me, here me out.
Back when the Bill of Rights was drafted, easily concealable guns were hard to come by, and were extremely unreliable.
The fathers probably assumed we would be using rifles for ages to come. Of course, that didn't happen.
Also keep in mind a lot of states and cities already have bans for other easily concealable yet dangerous weapons, such as knives and knuckles.
Also remember it was only a handgun ban, not a full gun ban. A rifle or shotgun is adequate for home defense, but will get you some strange looks walking down the street with it and can't be hidden easily.
Ultimately, I do agree it's pointless to ban handguns however, given the fact there are already too many of them in circulation, and the ease of acquiring them.
If such a ban came in around the Early 1800s, it would have probably been more effective and easier to enforce/manage.
- 11 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 05:05:14 ID:2e99vS7O0
- 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.
Well regulated Militia
security of a free State
right of the people to keep and bear Arms
I don't see in that sentence where it says every individual
is a well-regulated militia, but whatever.
- 12 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 05:44:58 ID:JdkHmskA0
Because if you ban "defensive use" then you can't protect yourself
from those who would use them "offensively". When seconds count,
the police are only minutes away.
- 13 ：maji：2008/06/28(Sat) 05:48:33 ID:0glzmcGC0
>Fuck you and learn to quote properly.
Take it easy.
- 14 ：American Unko：2008/07/11(Fri) 00:22:33 ID:wCKuPyvg0
- . . . ,,
. . . 'i ;;;;;,_
. . . . 'ii ;;;;;;;_;:..,,.,,,,,
. . . . . i; i; i; i;'',',;''_' :;,.
. . . . . .Xy__;:. . _ ) . . .)
. . . . . _(I''._,_,,__,, r_ , /
. . . .,/;:;'':;.:;''; i;'',',;;;_'' ; ;':;,.
. . . (ycc;:...:,:.:._;:..:,:.:.. _ . . .)
. . . .i.''-=v''- .:v_,, c_, r_ ,/
. . . /;i;i; '',',;;;_'';'';'';'';'';;;.K' ' ':;,
. . (y_ ,_;:...:,:.:._;_;:.:,:.:. . _ . . . , )
. . .V''.-= v''- .:v:: X_._ .,,_,,:_,r
. /i;i;'',',;;;_''U'';'';'';'';;;;;/.E''''' ' ':;,,
(y,,;:..R.:,:.:._;:.E.:,:.:. ._U 'o, , ' . , )
.V,,..;::;;;::,;,::;):;:;:; .:v_._ .,_,,v_,,r_,V
read.cgi ver 05.04.02 2018/11/22 Walang Kapalit ★
FOX ★ DSO(Dynamic Shared Object)