Democrats: Let’s Make a Deal
You want gay marriage? Sounds fine to me; I don’t really understand what’s so bad about it anyway. Tell you what, I’ll trade you straight up:
You get gay marriage, and we get a repeal of ALL gun restrictions. We go back to pre-1934 at the federal level, and the Second Amendment gets “incorporated” or whatever the word is that describes how the First Amendment (which says “Congress shall make no law”) applies to all levels of government down to the county dog-catcher. We get to own machine guns, “assault weapons”, “Saturday-night specials,” “sniper rifles,” you name it. No waiting periods, no background checks, no registration, no licensing, open carry, concealed carry, whatever we want. No federal, state, or local restrictions, ever again, as long as the wind blow, and the grass grow, and the sky is blue.
Any takers?
November 9th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
Now, you’re just being a obtuse. I quoted to you from a language expert the plain meaning of the language. If you can’t accept that, you’re in denial. challenge him, not me. Here’s the link to his credentials:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
And, for the record, you’re the one not being honest. I guess I should expect that from a liberal?
And if you think i’m a conservative, you’re right, depending on the issue. I’m liberal on a lot too. But hey it gets back to that creation science with you lumping me into a convenient category, eh?
November 9th, 2004 at 7:58 pm
And for the record, i’m not trying to humilate or berate you. I am telling you what I think, why i think it, and from where i drew my conclusion. I do appreciate this little exchange but until you realize that you’re not reading the sentence properly no matter how many times we tell you, you won’t get it.
With that, i challenge you to find an instance of this collective model of the second prior to, say, 1940?
November 9th, 2004 at 11:51 pm
I guess I’m a little confused. It’s ok, I wasn’t trying to attack anyone on here, I’m just trying to further my understanding. Those of you who want your guns, regardless of their relation to gay-marriage rights, can you explain why you want UNREGULATED guns?
Note, “Because they say we can have them in 2nd amendment” isn’t good enough. There are other constitutional rights that are being trampled on ALOT more than the second one, but you don’t seem to be passionate about them to bother writing a blogpost.
Why is the second amendment important to YOU?
November 10th, 2004 at 11:30 am
Cha-cha, I guess you haven’t read much of this blog. SayUncle frequently writes about other rights, such as property rights (click on the “Eminent Domain” category on the main page).
To answer the question of why we want unregulated guns, the answer is the same as why you’d want unregulated speech, or unregulated religion, or unregulated bedrooms.
November 11th, 2004 at 1:52 pm
Thanks, I’ll read up a little more about it. Although my immediate response (or defense) would constitute that unregulated speech (which is regulated and should be, to a degree [try shouting “fire” in a crowded theater]) or unregulated religion (you are free to believe anything in this country as long as it doesn’t hurt other people directly) and unregulated bedrooms (not entirely uregulated, for example, building codes require certain ceiling height but also, you can’t have sex with a child in any bedroom and I think it should stay that way)
So why should guns be the only thing that is unregulated?
(BTW, I’m really not trying to stir up a dead issue or kill your bandwidth, if you want to talk discuss this further while I research more of the writings on this page, please feel free to e-mail me at jwilder204 AT pikapp DOT us
November 11th, 2004 at 5:41 pm
You say “you are free to believe anything in this country as long as it doesn’t hurt other people directly.” That’s exactly what I’m asking for. My owning a machine gun hurts nobody directly.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but you seem to think that by asking for ownership of guns to be unregulated, I think there should be no consequence for the misuse of guns. Not so. While I believe I have the right to own as many firearms as I want, of any type I want, I don’t believe I have the right to shoot anybody and everybody I see.
November 11th, 2004 at 6:15 pm
Well I’m still in the middle of researching some of the above links, but Owning a gun, you’re correct, doesn’t hurt anyone. But it does make it easier for those guns to fall into the hands of kids, criminals, etc.
Just for reference, I do own a gun I like to target shoot with. It is a 22 calibur bolt-action. If the government went around and started collecting all our guns, i’d turn mine over.
Also, I live in Appomattox, Virginia, a very small town. A neighbor’s house was broken into because he had a stockpile of guns that a local kid knew about, he told a wanna-be gang-banger from nearby lynchburg, and those guns he stole were sold illegally over Lynchburg for a while… an isolated case, but to say it’s never happened before and won’t happen again?
Again, friendly discussion, just trying to expand my mind without the use of illegal drugs 🙂
November 11th, 2004 at 11:16 pm
I don’t see why the illegal actions of somebody else justifies limiting my freedom.
November 12th, 2004 at 2:34 am
A “well regulated militia” is one that could exercise the manual of arms and sustain a three rounds per minute rate of fire. An archaic meaning of “regulate” is to control the timing of something.