Parkland School Shooting
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Indeed. Nebraska struck me as the most interesting data point in those two graphs of the states you put up. What's up with Nebraska? Anyone been there lately?
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That surprised me as well. All I can think of is that many gun owners there didn't want to admit to owning guns. I would love to know the real answer.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I wish someone had told me about this when I was a young man. I would have spent a lot of my dating years in Nebraska.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I do not, and I think you and I have agreed pretty substantially on reasonable limits in the past. What I disagree with is this country's failure to treat this right with the same respect as the other rights that were defined in the Bill of Rights. By all means, make reasonable restrictions. I don't want spurned lovers shooting down passenger planes just because they are mad at one person on it, and I don't want 12 year old kids to buy Glocks with money they earned mowing lawns.
There are plenty of regulations that we can agree on, and those regulations should be added to the 2nd amendment in the prescribed manner. That isn't as easy as passing a law when one side or the other has control of the White House and Congress, but it also isn't supposed to be.
The First Amendment often results in riots, arson, and beatings.
The Fourth Amendment often results in criminals going free.
The Fifth Amendment often results in criminals going free and probably wastes more of Congress' and CSPAN's time than anything else.
The Eighth Amendment has been taken so far that we now pay for convicted criminals to get college degrees and watch HBO while they are being "punished" for their crimes.
The Ninth Amendment has somehow been interpreted to grant women the right to an abortion.
Why do we hold all of these other amendments in the Bill of Rights to be so sacrosanct, despite many of them often resulting in outcomes that are bad for society? Why do we interpret each of these other rights as broadly as possible? Because anyone who sits down and reads the Bill of Rights, the entire Bill of Rights, quickly understands that it's purpose is to guarantee these rights as fully as possible to citizens, and to limit the power of government. So why don't we also hold the Second as sacrosanct? Why don't we also interpret the Second as broadly as possible? The answer seems to be political expediency.
That's what you get when you script an event like this. CNN is trash.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think one could argue that it is interpreted broadly, particularly relative to how it's been interpreted in the past. The Heller decision alone is an incredibly novel and broad interpretation. One can also reasonably argue that it is held as sacrosanct, certainly by a healthy swath of the population.
I'd also suggest that the cost/benefit equations for the various amendments are fairly disparate.
sturg33
I
Well one just said it might as well had been Rubio pulling the trigger.
That's a frightening sentiment and I think we should all be quick to condemn that sentiment.
Like I said Julio, I've seen more negative press against the NRA than against Cruz. Why is that the case?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Yeah, lets elect some politicians who aren't bought by industry lobbies but don't think the government should be studying or regulating anything. Sounds like a real recipe for improvement.
As for whether or not America is ready for the unicorns...I'm on mobile now and can't easily clip the bit that I want to post, but I'd suggest everyone google the 2016 Libertarian Party debate discussion of drivers' licenses and decide if we're ready for this particular herd of unicorns.
As for the power and reach of the NRA, it's odd to see so many folks here denying it. It's not necessarily about their buying votes with campaign contributions (though that's certainly a component) but the fact that they have the ability to substantially fund and promote a primary challenger for Rs who don't toe the line. I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of R politicians who don't personally subscribe to the NRA's agenda but are too chicken**** to cross them.