The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2013, 08:52 AM   #901
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
Oh these new gun laws won't do much unfortunately, but it's a good start i guess? And I'll get roasted for this but clinging to the second amendment in today's day is BS. the intention of it was to form a militia, it even says that right in it. We haven't had those or a need for them in centuries. Now people want them for...why do people want assault weapons anyway?
It also says freedom of the press even though most media doesn't use presses anymore. So I guess the media is controllable by the government so long as using a press isn't involved.

Your selective reinterpretation of the Constitution in effect renders it null and void. Read more into the ratification debates and the federalist papers. This idea that the 2nd Amendment was only for militias is pure gleeful self-delusion. Of the kind that could be used to tear down the Bill of Rights completely.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 08:54 AM   #902
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
They have this fear of the gov & believe they one day they'll have to turn and use them against our own troops.
You've never read much Jefferson have you.

You guys must love the Patriot Act. And probably wish it went way further. Imagine how many baddies our benevolent government could dispatch if only they could put an unannounced ear on a few phone calls and get a few email sneak peeks every now and again. Its our beloved government so we all know there's be nothing to fear. And of course we can assume that wiretapping and electronic communication was never contemplated at the Constitutional convention. And vehicle search and seizure? No problem. Doesn't say anything about cars in the 4th Amendment.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 01-19-2013 at 09:22 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 10:02 AM   #903
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 19,018

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It also says freedom of the press even though most media doesn't use presses anymore. So I guess the media is controllable by the government so long as using a press isn't involved.

Your selective reinterpretation of the Constitution in effect renders it null and void. Read more into the ratification debates and the federalist papers. This idea that the 2nd Amendment was only for militias is pure gleeful self-delusion. Of the kind that could be used to tear down the Bill of Rights completely.
Lol press is a malleable term. Self delusion? It says it right in the amendment. Plus that was a document that was designed for a life much different than our current one. If you want a shotgun to shoot a deer, fine I don't care. If you want a pistol to protect your house, I don't care. I don't see why you need military grade weapons. The root of this problem is America's Ancient Greek like obsession with equating strength and power with violence. We are epically proud of our wars and basically pray to our military strength. Hell, listen to our national anthem

But don't worry Beavis, the anti gun people lost this argument a long time ago. All you crazy people will get to keep your bull****
SonOfLe-loLang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 10:59 AM   #904
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
Lol press is a malleable term.
So is Militia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

Not that it matters, because it wasn't written to mean what you say it does.

Quote:
Self delusion? It says it right in the amendment.
It's a prefatory clause that only forwards a rationale for the individual right. It was clearly meant that way by those who wrote it, and interpreted that way all the up until the progressive era when a certain breed of progressive started finding creative ways to try to subvert the established constitutional order.

Quote:
Plus that was a document that was designed for a life much different than our current one. If you want a shotgun to shoot a deer, fine I don't care. If you want a pistol to protect your house, I don't care. I don't see why you need military grade weapons. The root of this problem is America's Ancient Greek like obsession with equating strength and power with violence. We are epically proud of our wars and basically pray to our military strength. Hell, listen to our national anthem
Basically see above. Just because you don't like what you perceive your country to be doesn't give you the right to start changing the rules mid-game. If you don't like it, work to amend the constitution. Dis-interpreting the Constitution the way you do does the whole document harm, not just the parts you personally don't like.

Quote:
But don't worry Beavis, the anti gun people lost this argument a long time ago. All you crazy people will get to keep your bull****
Like I've said, I don't own anything anyone would plan on banning anytime in the near future. My largest objection is with people happy to watch the undermining of the clear intent of Constitution in order to see their own personal wishlist fulfilled. When you undermine the Constitution simply because it's too hard to legitimately amend to your liking, you're undoing the bonds that tie the country together.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 01-19-2013 at 11:01 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 11:11 AM   #905
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Now all of the sudden the libs are gun owners and support the 2nd Amendment.
As I've said before, I enjoy my 2nd amendment rights more than 99.9% of the chicken hawks on this board. I probably own more fireams, do my own reloading, have a concealed carry permit, am hunter, etc.

I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose (i.e. assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.)
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 11:29 AM   #906
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
OK, genius. So why can't the FCC touch cable?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ulate_hbo.html

See: Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

The entirety of the FCCs mandate rests on a 'think of the children' defense relating to the easy availability of "indecent" material to children in their homes via TV and radio broadcasts.

(this is the famous George Carlin, 7 Dirty Words supreme court case btw)
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 11:30 AM   #907
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
As I've said before, I enjoy my 2nd amendment rights more than 99.9% of the chicken hawks on this board. I probably own more fireams, do my own reloading, have a concealed carry permit, am hunter, etc.

I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose (i.e. assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.)
Concealed carry? Must carry a handgun? The kind of guns that kill probably 20x more people than assault rifles?

Anyway, you were saying something about hypocrisy or rational limits or something. Please go on.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 11:41 AM   #908
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
See: Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

The entirety of the FCCs mandate rests on a 'think of the children' defense relating to the easy availability of "indecent" material to children in their homes via TV and radio broadcasts.

(this is the famous George Carlin, 7 Dirty Words supreme court case btw)
That's nice and all. But that only dealt with public RF broadcasting. Nevermind that it's been undermined by numerous other decisions in the 35 years since. For instance

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/0...f-ing-closure/

Quote:
But also good news for TV-decency crusaders! Because the court decided that there was no need for it to take on the broader issue of whether it was the FCC’s constitutional prerogative at all to regulate obscene speech on the airwaves. (Reminder: “airwaves” here means specifically broadcast networks, not cable, because the public owns the air, not cable lines.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 11:42 AM   #909
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Concealed carry? Must carry a handgun? The kind of guns that kill probably 20x more people than assault rifles?

Anyway, you were saying something about hypocrisy or rational limits or something. Please go on.

What part of "legitimate defensive or sporting purpose" do you fail to understand?

Just like a car has a legit purpose other than running people down on the road.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 11:45 AM   #910
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's nice and all. But that only dealt with public RF broadcasting. Nevermind that it's been undermined by numerous other decisions in the 35 years since. For instance

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/0...f-ing-closure/
Look at the case law I cited. DISH network, Sirius, etc. ALL USE THE RF SPECTRUM so the idiotic analogy your previously quoted source breaks down entirely. Guess what, ABC owns its broadcasting equipment to, the only difference between DISH and ABC is that DISH's RF broadcast equipment is in orbit and ABC's RF broadcast equipment is terrestrial.

Oh, and DISH is a subscriber service (EDIT, preventing the unwanted "intrusion" of their signal in the home where 'the children' can easily view it), and ABC is not.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:00 PM   #911
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Look at the case law I cited. DISH network, Sirius, etc. ALL USE THE RF SPECTRUM so the idiotic analogy your previously quoted source breaks down entirely. Guess what, ABC owns its broadcasting equipment to, the only difference between DISH and ABC is that DISH's RF broadcast equipment is in orbit and ABC's RF broadcast equipment is terrestrial.

Oh, and DISH is a subscriber service (EDIT, preventing the unwanted "intrusion" of their signal in the home where 'the children' can easily view it), and ABC is not.
Hey, I think you're starting to get somewhere with yourself.

You're finally getting it. My personal first amendment freedoms do not protect my ability to bombard the air in other peoples' houses with my own personal messages. I think you're finally starting to grasp the difference between the FCC regulating what travels through public airspace and the government taking away what you can currently legally own in your own home.

Apples and Kittens when you think about it. But you did give it a try. Good effort.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:02 PM   #912
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Hey, I think you're starting to get somewhere with yourself.

You're finally getting it. My personal first amendment freedoms do not protect my ability to bombard the air in other peoples' houses with my own personal messages. I think you're finally starting to grasp the difference between the FCC regulating what travels through public airspace and the government taking away what you can currently legally own in your own home.

Apples and Kittens when you think about it. But you did give it a try. Good effort.
You've been trying to claim that it is use of RF spectrum that is the crux, rather than what I'm saying that it's about access by children (which happens to be what the law says as well, but go figure).

But nice try.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:04 PM   #913
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
What part of "legitimate defensive or sporting purpose" do you fail to understand?
The part where you never made that argument
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:08 PM   #914
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You've been trying to claim that it is use of RF spectrum that is the crux, rather than what I'm saying that it's about access by children (which happens to be what the law says as well, but go figure).

But nice try.
Not true. See Playboy v. US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tainment_Group
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:09 PM   #915
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The part where you never made that argument
"Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=836

"I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose"

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=905

(EDIT) The former quote, explicitly making the statement you say I didn't, was directly squarely at you. Reading must be difficult for you. I'll try to use more simple language in the future.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 01-19-2013 at 12:11 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:22 PM   #916
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
"Likewise, your right to posses firearms ends when you cross the line from sportsmen activities and self defense into offensive capability -- something even the NRA agrees with

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=836

"I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose"

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=905

(EDIT) The former quote, explicitly making the statement you say I didn't, was directly squarely at you. Reading must be difficult for you. I'll try to use more simple language in the future.
So you're really arguing that concealed handguns have a sporting purpose and no offensive purpose? Good luck with that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:27 PM   #917
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Hey thanks, another nice piece of support for my position.

That piece showcases a situation where the FFC tried to assert authority to do something based on 'protecting the children' from inadvertent exposure to indecent material (via signal bleed) that the supreme court didn't accept because they found it unconstitutional given that that were other reasonable means to prevent that inadvertent access.

Has exactly nada to do with RF spectrum use.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:32 PM   #918
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,879

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So you're really arguing that concealed handguns have a sporting purpose and no offensive purpose? Good luck with that.
:facepalm:

I'm done with you until you can actually learn some reading comprehension.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:45 PM   #919
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Hey thanks, another nice piece of support for my position.

That piece showcases a situation where the FFC tried to assert authority to do something based on 'protecting the children' from inadvertent exposure to indecent material (via signal bleed) that the supreme court didn't accept because they found it unconstitutional given that that were other reasonable means to prevent that inadvertent access.

Has exactly nada to do with RF spectrum use.
Please read the decision and apply some critical thinking. Cable has, as a fully contained and private transmission method, the advantage of people being able to select the signals which do or don't enter their house. This is not possible with radio transmission which is why the FCC (as mandated by the Court) treats it differently. RF is a privileged avenue into your home that you have no control over. Arguing that this first amendment "restriction" confers something upon the second amendment might only apply if we were talking about the right to shoot through your neighbors' windows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 12:51 PM   #920
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
:facepalm:

I'm done with you until you can actually learn some reading comprehension.
What I'm gathering is that you assume that whatever you do with your firearms is right and protected yet what anyone else does is up for question. I'd be willing to bet a large majority of gun murders in this country involve concealed handguns. Yet to you that's all good Cuz that's just how you roll.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 01:17 PM   #921
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 19,018

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So is Militia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

Not that it matters, because it wasn't written to mean what you say it does.



It's a prefatory clause that only forwards a rationale for the individual right. It was clearly meant that way by those who wrote it, and interpreted that way all the up until the progressive era when a certain breed of progressive started finding creative ways to try to subvert the established constitutional order.



Basically see above. Just because you don't like what you perceive your country to be doesn't give you the right to start changing the rules mid-game. If you don't like it, work to amend the constitution. Dis-interpreting the Constitution the way you do does the whole document harm, not just the parts you personally don't like.



Like I've said, I don't own anything anyone would plan on banning anytime in the near future. My largest objection is with people happy to watch the undermining of the clear intent of Constitution in order to see their own personal wishlist fulfilled. When you undermine the Constitution simply because it's too hard to legitimately amend to your liking, you're undoing the bonds that tie the country together.
If assault rifles are the bond that holds our country together, then thats a sad ****ing country. This country loves guns, it loves violence, and that stuff isn't going anywhere. But don't give me this **** about how the constitution was something brought on by a higher power (i know you didn't say it, but you seem to hate when people question it) Humans created it. Humans that couldn't predict what our future would look like and didn't really intend to. When the constitution was written, militias were important! Now, we have a fully functioning military. When we are at war, town militias aren't called upon. And if there's a draft, the military provides the weaponry. I know this country loves their guns, and if you want to hunt or protect your family, fine, if that makes you feel better.

But regardless, as I said, I don't think the supply is really the problem here...though it doesn't help. I think we're a culture that equates power and strength with violence and ammunition, and until we start looking at our past differently, and stop priding ourselves on military power, nothings gonna change. And since I dont think that'll ever change, we're stuck with this uniquely american problem forever. But hiding behind an antiquated amendment is absurd. I sincerely doubt the founding fathers would have felt similarly if they already had the most powerful military in the world at their disposal.
SonOfLe-loLang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 02:47 PM   #923
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
If assault rifles are the bond that holds our country together, then thats a sad ****ing country. This country loves guns, it loves violence, and that stuff isn't going anywhere. But don't give me this **** about how the constitution was something brought on by a higher power (i know you didn't say it, but you seem to hate when people question it) Humans created it. Humans that couldn't predict what our future would look like and didn't really intend to. When the constitution was written, militias were important! Now, we have a fully functioning military. When we are at war, town militias aren't called upon. And if there's a draft, the military provides the weaponry. I know this country loves their guns, and if you want to hunt or protect your family, fine, if that makes you feel better.
It's not the assault rifle ban in and of itself so much as the complete departure from reason based on headline and emotion.

Quote:
But hiding behind an antiquated amendment is absurd. I sincerely doubt the founding fathers would have felt similarly if they already had the most powerful military in the world at their disposal.
Again, as I've quoted repeatedly... the founders feared a strong American federal military more than anything. State militias and an armed populace were meant to be a check on it, not a cog in it.

Quote:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
James Madison, aka the dude that wrote the 2nd Amendment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 07:50 PM   #924
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Again, as I've quoted repeatedly... the founders feared a strong American federal military more than anything. State militias and an armed populace were meant to be a check on it, not a cog in it.
How would an armed populace be anything more than a minor irritation to the US military?

Don't assume that every proud NRA member and/or gun owner would fight on the side of the rebels. A tyrant is likely to be dressed in a suit, wrapped in the flag, wearing a Christian cross and bearing messages of patriotism.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2013, 08:11 PM   #925
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,404
Default

Liberals thinking that their ownership of guns gives them some right to then infringe of other gun rights is pretty funny to me. Just because you own a gun does not give you an inside track on whether or not its right to ban assault weapons. It's against the constitution whether you own a firearm or not.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 PM.


Denver Broncos