They were banned. And the same people want to do it again.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/11/2011 2:18:00 AM (view original):
What about shotguns with a 10 round magazine? Banned.

To tie the 2nd Amendment to nukes is just a way to scare people into supporting larger scale gun bans.

I know this has been attacked by your side so much that it is now cliche, but guns dont kill people.

So you meant were once banned.

I didn't "tie the 2nd amendment to nukes", fucktard. I pointed out that a 'defense against tyranny' argument, which is the only one you can logically use to justify extended mags on semi-automatics, is a slippery slope argument that could be used to justify just about anything. You're the one defending personal ownership of weapons whose only use is to kill lots of people in the shortest possible amount of time.

Same goes for a large mag on a shotgun. Birds aren't going to flitter about waiting for you to get your sixth shot off. It's got no good hunting or self-defense application.

Basically, if you're drawing a 2nd amendment line at what are called 'assault weapons' but nothing "worse", you've got no logical basis for doing so. You're being completely arbitrary.

Plus, it's the height of hypocrisy to say I'm using a scare tactic by even mentioning nukes, when "your side's" argument inevitably devolves into "them damn libruls want to take away your guns!"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Guns don't kill people..... People with guns kill people.

Then let's ban people.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/10/2011 1:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nanu on 1/9/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I should add, in our case, the **** that changed was the constitution was written at a time of muskets.  The next couple of centuries brought weapons of mass destruction, from gatling guns to nuclear warheads.  The value of those weapons in citizen hands is highly suspect to me, and I believeour forefathers would have some interesting thoughts on the subject.  But we can never know what they would have decided because they did not know.  Anything in judgment for or against is pure supposition.  It is up to the generations who live in the reality of automatic weapons to determine how those weapons ought to be regulated.  Jefferson isn't going to rise up from the grave and tell us what to do.

In the context of the Constitution "Arms" referes to personal arms. It does not refer to nuclear bombs and tanks.

Why?  Because you say so? IMHO It refers to arms to provide for the defense of the nation since many did not believe a standing army was needed. Therefore it makes the right to bear arms a state issue because the need for well regulated militia no longer exists.

The whole context of the 2nd Amendment. "Keep and bear" does not imply a cannon.

You can spin this however you want. The 2nd Amendment is about law abiding citizens being able to keep their personal firearms.

And if you are defending yourself against 6 people you will find a need for a larger magazine.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/11/2011 2:34:00 PM (view original):
The whole context of the 2nd Amendment. "Keep and bear" does not imply a cannon.

You can spin this however you want. The 2nd Amendment is about law abiding citizens being able to keep their personal firearms.

And if you are defending yourself against 6 people you will find a need for a larger magazine.

It says that right is only available to law-abiding citizens?

Felons were never supposed to enjoy the freedoms we all do.

This list could go on and on....the cries of the stupidity of people like Dan Quayle, Gerald Ford (who was attacked because of his wife's substance abuse problems), Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich to name a few.  It seems eerily similar to what the Nazi's did to Poland when they killed off the most intelligent and then started making "Polock jokes" to further push the idea that Poles were stupid.

Is this guy serious?  This is a joke right?  

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/11/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Felons were never supposed to enjoy the freedoms we all do.

According to?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/11/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Felons were never supposed to enjoy the freedoms we all do.

Making up the Constitution to fit your warped view of life.

Posted by creilmann on 1/11/2011 6:38:00 PM (view original):

This list could go on and on....the cries of the stupidity of people like Dan Quayle, Gerald Ford (who was attacked because of his wife's substance abuse problems), Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich to name a few.  It seems eerily similar to what the Nazi's did to Poland when they killed off the most intelligent and then started making "Polock jokes" to further push the idea that Poles were stupid.

Is this guy serious?  This is a joke right?  

Because I would think that Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 40's and 50's would be eerily similar to what the nazis did.  I would think that maybe the Southern Strategy that the GOP used in the 60's would seem eerily similar to what the nazis did.  Or maybe the non-stop violence against gays that the Christian right has condoned, or the constant rhetoric of liberals being anti-American or maybe the fact that any brown lookin' fella in Arizona today can be stopped by police and asked to show his papers or maybe it would be the fact that right has had a field day painting Obama as "not one of us" to the point that there is a substantial movement on the right that believes he wasn't born in the US and is not legally our President or Sarah Palin's Real or Pro America vs those anti-American areas like Chicago, Manhattan and Northern Virginia, or Ann Coulter's call to "execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." or etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc......

None of that seems eerily similar to what the nazi's did, but questioning Sarah Palin's intelligence or flat out calling her an idiot (which, to be clear, she absolutely is) seems to be rather nazi-like to you.  Got it.