Sure, but post-Manhattan Project, the only thing that vast military might counts for is the ability for a large country to fuck around with a tiny country. A war between nuclear powers begins and ends with an exchange of nukes. The size of one's military isn't the globe-changing force that it was in early WW2.
So I'm a bit detached from this, being European and considering gun control an obvious reality of life, a bit like air and Doritos, it just exists, but...
Why is it an issue if gun control is unconstitutional or not? There are constitutional reform protocols, aren't there? It's a matter of taking that decidedly XVIII century anachronistic piece of legislation, dumping it and joining the rest of the western world here in modern times. Why keep going around the fact that it's a barbaric outdated law AND in the Constitution at the same time? It's not a religious text, but a legal one. It's bound to need upgrades every now and then.
It's an issue because we're a constitutional republic and if we start ignoring the constitution we become an anarchist republic.
The latter kinda sucks.
If you're asking whether I'd personally support an amendment to our constitution doing away with gun rights, I'd say no. We could get into a long and utterly pointless argument as to how much good the restrictions on guns in other countries do (again, I give a fuck less what your crime rate is compared to the US, I care what it is compared to what it was before your restrictions were introduced...which in most cases is "about the same" or "following the same trend"). I'll pass on that, though. But I will (seemingly) agree with you that if we do want to start banning guns in this country (or instituting de facto bans) that it merely needs to be done the "right" way...a constitutional amendment, not some law passed at the municipal level.
Do you have any idea what is required for a constitutional amendment in this country? It's not going to happen. Like, ever. Not on this issue. Considering that 35 states at the moment has "shall issue" concealed carry laws (which means not only can you relatively easily obtain a gun, but unless you have a criminal record they must issue you a permit to carry it as well) I don't see 2/3 of the states agreeing to overturn the second amendment.
Oh my God, so many words and so little said.
I kind of assumed that. Thanks for verifying.
EDIT: And again, I'm not opposed in principle to a licensing requirement...within limits. But it simply cannot be used as a de facto ban. Or a de facto ban on poor people. So it needs to be on a basically "shall issue" basis (so more of a required class than required test), and cheap (if that means subsidized by taxes, so be it). And there should be some way to do it retroactively...because when my wife's (then girlfriend) stalker ex-roommate starts breaking into the house, I really don't want to have to wait to get a gun until I can fit some stupid fucking class into my schedule.
EDIT: For those, especially not in the US, who think this sounds pretty pointless, it's a hell of a lot better than what many states how now. Which is "walk in with a credit card and an ID and walk out with a gun 10 minutes later." You can buy a handgun here about as easily as a loaf of bread.
I didn't go "tl;dr" though. I actually read your craptastic post, which was a rambling bunch of nonsense with only a couple of actual distinct points lost in a veritable sea of stream-of-consciousness.
You need to work on your brevity and clarity if you want to actually participate in the discussion. This isn't even a suggestion, it's a fact. If you cannot distill your point into a coherent, readable, and brief post then no one will read your posts.
-edit-
And simply judging by your avatar I am guessing that you hear this a lot and always ignore it.
Because the thing is, if someone decides to fuck with me, I know that the law is on my side. Yeah, I might get the tar beat out of me. I might lose my wallet. My car might get totalled. But you know what? Whoever does that will pay for it. We have a justice system that, most of the time, works. That's good enough for me.
As someone who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, I agree with most of your points, actually: people who carry regularly have a "hero" fantasy type complex. I got mine because of a very specific situation that is no longer relevant.
The quoted text, though, is bullshit. Unless the person who assaulted you was someone you knew, the chances of them being caught for it are not great. Not only that, but even if they do catch a suspect, the conviction rate is not as high as you might expect. The justice system works in the sense of keeping most innocent people out of jail and providing a bit of a deterrent. It doesn't work all that well when it comes to tracking down a random dude that punched you in the face or broke into your house.
Because the thing is, if someone decides to fuck with me, I know that the law is on my side. Yeah, I might get the tar beat out of me. I might lose my wallet. My car might get totalled. But you know what? Whoever does that will pay for it. We have a justice system that, most of the time, works. That's good enough for me.
As someone who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, I agree with most of your points, actually: people who carry regularly have a "hero" fantasy type complex. I got mine because of a very specific situation that is no longer relevant.
The quoted text, though, is bullshit. Unless the person who assaulted you was someone you knew, the chances of them being caught for it are not great. Not only that, but even if they do catch a suspect, the conviction rate is not as high as you might expect. The justice system works in the sense of keeping most innocent people out of jail and providing a bit of a deterrent. It doesn't work all that well when it comes to tracking down a random dude that punched you in the face or broke into your house.
The justice system is not a deterrent to criminals. This is proven by the record amount of people in jail and prison, and repeat offenders. A gun pointed at a would be invader/attacker is more of a deterrent than "you're going to get 10 years for this, 5 or 6 with good behavior. IF they actually catch you..."
Should I go through and put it in bullet-point form then? Would that make it easier for you to skim for the "distinct points"?
No you dipshit you need to leave out all the sentences that don't actually convey any useful information. Do you babble from the mouth constantly in person? I'm guessing yes. Well that's annoying as it is, and when it's in text form people will not read it.
It's a bit of a deterrent. I mean, "what if I get caught" comes into play at some point. It's just not a major one.
also, it will vary based on the situational likelyhood of actually getting caught.
Every single smoke out there knows the health risks associated with their habit; death, cancer, heart attack, high blood pressure, birth defects. Yet, we still have millions of smokers who just won't quit, despite knowing the consequences. They put the Surgeon General's warning right on every pack, and there are tons of anti-smoking ads.
But I bet if you told a smoker to touch this thing that has a DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE sign on it, they'd be like, "No fuckin way". It's that immediate threat of mortal danger. That's what a gun does.
If I don't get out of here, I might die right here, right now. The criminal isn't thinking 10-20 years down the road, he's thinking of that instant. Jail time is not a deterrent, potential death is.
I think the United States Navy still has a very important role in the global economy. No one (probably) will hit go on the whole mutually assured destruction scenario, but I do know that you can exert political and economic pressure in certain regions even today. You can also establish a presence that deters potential conflict. I have to disagree that military might is not a global changing force. You're right that there is a pretty large discrepancy between large and small nations, but it exists on both the positive and negative sides and so a strong country (such as the United States) can still act as a stabilizing force. Both for economic trade in disputed areas like the Gulf (which I've personally seen), and for political posturing in places like Kosovo, Bahrain, and South Korea.
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing. Just that it exists.
Ares - just got your PM and realized this is the thread you were talking about. Will read it after my conference call. Thanks for contributing.
I think the United States Navy still has a very important role in the global economy. No one (probably) will hit go on the whole mutually assured destruction scenario, but I do know that you can exert political and economic pressure in certain regions even today. You can also establish a presence that deters potential conflict. I have to disagree that military might is not a global changing force. You're right that there is a pretty large discrepancy between large and small nations, but it exists on both the positive and negative sides and so a strong country (such as the United States) can still act as a stabilizing force. Both for economic trade in disputed areas like the Gulf (which I've personally seen), and for political posturing in places like Kosovo, Bahrain, and South Korea.
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing. Just that it exists.
Ares - just got your PM and realized this is the thread you were talking about. Will read it after my conference call. Thanks for contributing.
I dunno, I'd say that direct economic dependency acts as more of a stabilizing force than good ol' MAD did. We aren't in a cold war with China largely because we've become dependent on them and they on us, and even the hint of a war, even a trade embargo, would fuck up both countries pretty damn badly. Economic MAD rather than physical MAD, as it were.
As for the ability to fuck around in small countries being sometimes a good thing (as in Korea, Kosovo, Somalia, etc), well, yeah, I agree. That's why we keep a military around. Hell, even most European countries keep a decent active military (pop quiz: what's the only other country with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier?). But a conventional military, while important, is still not quite the globe-changing force that it was seventy years ago, and we might be overfunding ours a bit.
But this is rapidly diverging from the topic of private gun control. All I'm saying is don't be so quick to dismiss other countries as "failed"; we aren't the Undisputed Masters of Everything yet, nor will we ever be. Sometimes other countries come up with good ideas, and there's no shame in taking them just because we weren't the first. (Of course, the original post that spurred this tangent was talking about European stances on gun control, which vary widely from country to country: compare England and Switzerland for example.)
PeekingDuck, if a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and shotguns are going to be a problem for the U.S. military to handle with a dictator, explain why 80% of a country where basically everyone owns an AK-47 was a cakewalk for Saddam Hussein to control with a military that was entirely obliterated by the U.S. military?
Well, he was bugfuck crazy and had no problem killing his own people... hell, his own family. Those who were moderately powerful enough to not be cowed by mere brutality were bought off.
Remember that every criminal starts out at least at one time or another as a law abiding citizen.
Drug pushers, gang-bangers, and muggers don't suddenly freak out one day in line at Best Buy and say, "let's do some crimes." They also don't get their guns at the gun store.
As to my knowledge all the recent school/mall/church shootings have been with legally owned and obtained firearms right?
For VA Tech and Columbine? Not really... VA Tech guy should have been denied from NICS but the state of Virginia didn't send in his "crazy" info into the Feds, and Columbine was a straw sale through one of the kid's older girlfriend (i.e. fraud). As far as others, not real sure.
And I've already thought of your counter-argument, ya ya ya but if we had CCW's people could just whip out their glocks and deal with someone who went psycho. But do we really want bloody shootouts all the damn time? Would kinda go back to the wild west days.
In the recent "history" of CCW, I don't know of anyone with a CCW who nutted up, nor do I know of one who stopped a "nutting up" spree. Someone else may know better than me.
The only actual misuse of a CCW I've ever witnessed was a guy telling another guy in traffic (and on the news) at a sporting event "I have a concealed handgun license, do you wanna DIE?" He didn't have his license after that. And, no one died. (I also said this in the last gun thread... we do a lot of repetition here)
And, btw... the wild west days weren't the wild west days. People weren't killing each other left and right, most towns didn't let you carry guns around, regardless of whether or not they were on the frontier, and people didn't tend to shoot it out in the streets with a few notable exceptions. Don't base your idea of history on movies. When people did decide to kill each other, it was by ambush... kinda like they do now.
Define "most powerful." China's economy is coming up fast on the US, and nobody is fucking paying attention. There isn't a lot we can do, other than somehow mandating that we won't have a trade deficit with them. Even that would be unlikely to stop it.
Actually, people are paying attention, but you're right in that there isn't anything we can do. They're funding our war and they're building cheap shit for us. We're joined at the hip with China.
The justice system is not a deterrent to criminals. This is proven by the record amount of people in jail and prison, and repeat offenders. A gun pointed at a would be invader/attacker is more of a deterrent than "you're going to get 10 years for this, 5 or 6 with good behavior. IF they actually catch you..."
The record number of people in prison is thanks to the War on Drugs.
All of which are registered, and access to ammunition is limited to the gun range. We do this one every time we talk about guns.
What part of that makes Switzerland not on the European continent?
It doesn't indicate a more lax attitude toward firearms and the potential for a firearm to be used in a crime. There is still a heavy amount of regulation going on. The ammunition is regulated. It's to be locked up and disabled. If you're following the laws, you can't do anything with it unless you go to the gun range. There is no provision for using it as self defense in any capacity but "oh shit, Germans, run and get bullets."
All of which are registered, and access to ammunition is limited to the gun range. We do this one every time we talk about guns.
What part of that makes Switzerland not on the European continent?
It doesn't indicate a more lax attitude toward firearms and the potential for a firearm to be used in a crime. There is still a heavy amount of regulation going on. The ammunition is regulated. It's to be locked up and disabled. If you're following the laws, you can't do anything with it unless you go to the gun range. There is no provision for using it as self defense in any capacity but "oh shit, Germans, run and get bullets."
In the recent "history" of CCW, I don't know of anyone with a CCW who nutted up, nor do I know of one who stopped a "nutting up" spree. Someone else may know better than me.
The only actual misuse of a CCW I've ever witnessed was a guy telling another guy in traffic (and on the news) at a sporting event "I have a concealed handgun license, do you wanna DIE?" He didn't have his license after that. And, no one died. (I also said this in the last gun thread... we do a lot of repetition here)
I believe I also heard about a case of some crazy chick with a CCW shooting at another car in traffic. Ohio, maybe? Anyway, those are the only two I've ever heard of. And in general crimes among CCW holders are pretty rare. The kind of people that apply for a CCW in the first place generally have and want to keep clean criminal records.
Also, not necessarily CCW holders but there have been a few instances of mass shooters being stopped or apprehended thanks to bystanders with legally owned guns.
And this is the point where I, once again, say that arguing gun control or gun rights in the context of mass shootings (in other words, people "nutting up") is like arguing pedestrian safety in the context of falling pianos. It's entirely irrelevant.
mcdermott on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
People with concealed carry permits commit crimes at drastically lower rates than the general public. Though I only have the Texas numbers in front of me, I'd be very surprised if it were anything else in another state. I think they also police their own much harsher than any of their detractors. Blood didn't run in the streets then, and it won't now that this decision was upheld, and it still won't happen once the litigation ends in all the cities violating the Consitution.
Also - did you guys see how fast the Chicago suit was filed? 15 minutes? What took them so long?
Red Dawn works because Jennifer Grey and Leah Thompson are hot and Patrick Swayze can deflect bullets with his mullet.
Man they should remake that movie but with the Chinese.
And Jessica Biel.
Only if she's naked in it. It's the only way a remake of such a good movie could be done well.
And I've seen a lot of people on other forums and in article comments crying about "machineguns" and "assault rifles." Do these people have any fucking clue what kinds of hoops you have to jump through to get an NFA tax stamp, much less the prohibitive cost of acquiring one of those weapons?
And I've seen a lot of people on other forums and in article comments crying about "machineguns" and "assault rifles." Do these people have any fucking clue what kinds of hoops you have to jump through to get an NFA tax stamp, much less the prohibitive cost of acquiring one of those weapons?
Well, the prohibitive cost is only because of the artificially limited supply. The hoops are very real, though.
I don't see this ruling changing that at all, however. Though some of the wording suggests that weapons suitable to the militia ("assault rifles") may actually be protected for individual ownership. But again, unless the second gets incorporated, that doesn't matter much anyway...since the most restrictive laws around generally all at the state level (or lower).
The justice system is not a deterrent to criminals. This is proven by the record amount of people in jail and prison, and repeat offenders. A gun pointed at a would be invader/attacker is more of a deterrent than "you're going to get 10 years for this, 5 or 6 with good behavior. IF they actually catch you..."
The record number of people in prison is thanks to the War on Drugs.
The drug offenders are ironically often rounded up in weapon sweeps. No weapons turn up in the raid, but hey we can nail this person of color for possession or an outstanding warrant.
There is also the angle that illegal drugs trade results in violence and escalation or arms. This also results in impriosonment and death
And I've seen a lot of people on other forums and in article comments crying about "machineguns" and "assault rifles." Do these people have any fucking clue what kinds of hoops you have to jump through to get an NFA tax stamp, much less the prohibitive cost of acquiring one of those weapons?
Well, the prohibitive cost is only because of the artificially limited supply.
Damn right. A fully automatic AK-47, in really any nation in sub-saharan Africa, will cost like a hundred dollars American.
But yes, I think the ruling specifically mentioned that, for instance, an M-16 wouldn't necessarily be protected by this, or something. I don't remember exactly: Scalia's logic on the finer points of where the line is drawn was a little murky. I think we'll need a Constitutional amendment before this all ends in any case (not to revoke it, just to clarify): "arms" is a big fucking category and the Second Amendment is the most ambiguously-worded of any of them. Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
But then "Congress shall pass no law restricting the right to bear arms" or whatever would have worked. Instead we get this thing that's worded completely differently from basically everything else. It's one of only two clauses in the constitution that bothers to explain why it's there, it has more commas than any sentence in the English language should be written in, and it's in some kind of ultra-passive voice.
Posts
It's an issue because we're a constitutional republic and if we start ignoring the constitution we become an anarchist republic.
The latter kinda sucks.
If you're asking whether I'd personally support an amendment to our constitution doing away with gun rights, I'd say no. We could get into a long and utterly pointless argument as to how much good the restrictions on guns in other countries do (again, I give a fuck less what your crime rate is compared to the US, I care what it is compared to what it was before your restrictions were introduced...which in most cases is "about the same" or "following the same trend"). I'll pass on that, though. But I will (seemingly) agree with you that if we do want to start banning guns in this country (or instituting de facto bans) that it merely needs to be done the "right" way...a constitutional amendment, not some law passed at the municipal level.
Do you have any idea what is required for a constitutional amendment in this country? It's not going to happen. Like, ever. Not on this issue. Considering that 35 states at the moment has "shall issue" concealed carry laws (which means not only can you relatively easily obtain a gun, but unless you have a criminal record they must issue you a permit to carry it as well) I don't see 2/3 of the states agreeing to overturn the second amendment.
I kind of assumed that. Thanks for verifying.
EDIT: And again, I'm not opposed in principle to a licensing requirement...within limits. But it simply cannot be used as a de facto ban. Or a de facto ban on poor people. So it needs to be on a basically "shall issue" basis (so more of a required class than required test), and cheap (if that means subsidized by taxes, so be it). And there should be some way to do it retroactively...because when my wife's (then girlfriend) stalker ex-roommate starts breaking into the house, I really don't want to have to wait to get a gun until I can fit some stupid fucking class into my schedule.
EDIT: For those, especially not in the US, who think this sounds pretty pointless, it's a hell of a lot better than what many states how now. Which is "walk in with a credit card and an ID and walk out with a gun 10 minutes later." You can buy a handgun here about as easily as a loaf of bread.
I didn't go "tl;dr" though. I actually read your craptastic post, which was a rambling bunch of nonsense with only a couple of actual distinct points lost in a veritable sea of stream-of-consciousness.
You need to work on your brevity and clarity if you want to actually participate in the discussion. This isn't even a suggestion, it's a fact. If you cannot distill your point into a coherent, readable, and brief post then no one will read your posts.
-edit-
And simply judging by your avatar I am guessing that you hear this a lot and always ignore it.
As someone who is licensed to carry a concealed pistol, I agree with most of your points, actually: people who carry regularly have a "hero" fantasy type complex. I got mine because of a very specific situation that is no longer relevant.
The quoted text, though, is bullshit. Unless the person who assaulted you was someone you knew, the chances of them being caught for it are not great. Not only that, but even if they do catch a suspect, the conviction rate is not as high as you might expect. The justice system works in the sense of keeping most innocent people out of jail and providing a bit of a deterrent. It doesn't work all that well when it comes to tracking down a random dude that punched you in the face or broke into your house.
The justice system is not a deterrent to criminals. This is proven by the record amount of people in jail and prison, and repeat offenders. A gun pointed at a would be invader/attacker is more of a deterrent than "you're going to get 10 years for this, 5 or 6 with good behavior. IF they actually catch you..."
No you dipshit you need to leave out all the sentences that don't actually convey any useful information. Do you babble from the mouth constantly in person? I'm guessing yes. Well that's annoying as it is, and when it's in text form people will not read it.
also, it will vary based on the situational likelyhood of actually getting caught.
Every single smoke out there knows the health risks associated with their habit; death, cancer, heart attack, high blood pressure, birth defects. Yet, we still have millions of smokers who just won't quit, despite knowing the consequences. They put the Surgeon General's warning right on every pack, and there are tons of anti-smoking ads.
But I bet if you told a smoker to touch this thing that has a DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE sign on it, they'd be like, "No fuckin way". It's that immediate threat of mortal danger. That's what a gun does.
If I don't get out of here, I might die right here, right now. The criminal isn't thinking 10-20 years down the road, he's thinking of that instant. Jail time is not a deterrent, potential death is.
I think the United States Navy still has a very important role in the global economy. No one (probably) will hit go on the whole mutually assured destruction scenario, but I do know that you can exert political and economic pressure in certain regions even today. You can also establish a presence that deters potential conflict. I have to disagree that military might is not a global changing force. You're right that there is a pretty large discrepancy between large and small nations, but it exists on both the positive and negative sides and so a strong country (such as the United States) can still act as a stabilizing force. Both for economic trade in disputed areas like the Gulf (which I've personally seen), and for political posturing in places like Kosovo, Bahrain, and South Korea.
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing. Just that it exists.
Ares - just got your PM and realized this is the thread you were talking about. Will read it after my conference call.
I dunno, I'd say that direct economic dependency acts as more of a stabilizing force than good ol' MAD did. We aren't in a cold war with China largely because we've become dependent on them and they on us, and even the hint of a war, even a trade embargo, would fuck up both countries pretty damn badly. Economic MAD rather than physical MAD, as it were.
As for the ability to fuck around in small countries being sometimes a good thing (as in Korea, Kosovo, Somalia, etc), well, yeah, I agree. That's why we keep a military around. Hell, even most European countries keep a decent active military (pop quiz: what's the only other country with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier?). But a conventional military, while important, is still not quite the globe-changing force that it was seventy years ago, and we might be overfunding ours a bit.
But this is rapidly diverging from the topic of private gun control. All I'm saying is don't be so quick to dismiss other countries as "failed"; we aren't the Undisputed Masters of Everything yet, nor will we ever be. Sometimes other countries come up with good ideas, and there's no shame in taking them just because we weren't the first. (Of course, the original post that spurred this tangent was talking about European stances on gun control, which vary widely from country to country: compare England and Switzerland for example.)
And, yet, they are still rednecks.
Well, he was bugfuck crazy and had no problem killing his own people... hell, his own family. Those who were moderately powerful enough to not be cowed by mere brutality were bought off.
The smallpox blankets and an otherwise primitive technology base helped. It's not like they could make guns they hadn't traded for or raided for.
Drug pushers, gang-bangers, and muggers don't suddenly freak out one day in line at Best Buy and say, "let's do some crimes." They also don't get their guns at the gun store.
For VA Tech and Columbine? Not really... VA Tech guy should have been denied from NICS but the state of Virginia didn't send in his "crazy" info into the Feds, and Columbine was a straw sale through one of the kid's older girlfriend (i.e. fraud). As far as others, not real sure.
In the recent "history" of CCW, I don't know of anyone with a CCW who nutted up, nor do I know of one who stopped a "nutting up" spree. Someone else may know better than me.
The only actual misuse of a CCW I've ever witnessed was a guy telling another guy in traffic (and on the news) at a sporting event "I have a concealed handgun license, do you wanna DIE?" He didn't have his license after that. And, no one died. (I also said this in the last gun thread... we do a lot of repetition here)
And, btw... the wild west days weren't the wild west days. People weren't killing each other left and right, most towns didn't let you carry guns around, regardless of whether or not they were on the frontier, and people didn't tend to shoot it out in the streets with a few notable exceptions. Don't base your idea of history on movies. When people did decide to kill each other, it was by ambush... kinda like they do now.
Actually, people are paying attention, but you're right in that there isn't anything we can do. They're funding our war and they're building cheap shit for us. We're joined at the hip with China.
The record number of people in prison is thanks to the War on Drugs.
What part of that makes Switzerland not on the European continent?
You forget pistol whipping.
I believe I also heard about a case of some crazy chick with a CCW shooting at another car in traffic. Ohio, maybe? Anyway, those are the only two I've ever heard of. And in general crimes among CCW holders are pretty rare. The kind of people that apply for a CCW in the first place generally have and want to keep clean criminal records.
Also, not necessarily CCW holders but there have been a few instances of mass shooters being stopped or apprehended thanks to bystanders with legally owned guns.
And this is the point where I, once again, say that arguing gun control or gun rights in the context of mass shootings (in other words, people "nutting up") is like arguing pedestrian safety in the context of falling pianos. It's entirely irrelevant.
Man they should remake that movie but with the Chinese.
And Jessica Biel.
Also - did you guys see how fast the Chicago suit was filed? 15 minutes? What took them so long?
Oh god yes.
Only if she's naked in it. It's the only way a remake of such a good movie could be done well.
And I've seen a lot of people on other forums and in article comments crying about "machineguns" and "assault rifles." Do these people have any fucking clue what kinds of hoops you have to jump through to get an NFA tax stamp, much less the prohibitive cost of acquiring one of those weapons?
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Well, the prohibitive cost is only because of the artificially limited supply. The hoops are very real, though.
I don't see this ruling changing that at all, however. Though some of the wording suggests that weapons suitable to the militia ("assault rifles") may actually be protected for individual ownership. But again, unless the second gets incorporated, that doesn't matter much anyway...since the most restrictive laws around generally all at the state level (or lower).
The drug offenders are ironically often rounded up in weapon sweeps. No weapons turn up in the raid, but hey we can nail this person of color for possession or an outstanding warrant.
There is also the angle that illegal drugs trade results in violence and escalation or arms. This also results in impriosonment and death
Damn right. A fully automatic AK-47, in really any nation in sub-saharan Africa, will cost like a hundred dollars American.
But yes, I think the ruling specifically mentioned that, for instance, an M-16 wouldn't necessarily be protected by this, or something. I don't remember exactly: Scalia's logic on the finer points of where the line is drawn was a little murky. I think we'll need a Constitutional amendment before this all ends in any case (not to revoke it, just to clarify): "arms" is a big fucking category and the Second Amendment is the most ambiguously-worded of any of them. Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
You can have your guns if we can have our drugs.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
But then "Congress shall pass no law restricting the right to bear arms" or whatever would have worked. Instead we get this thing that's worded completely differently from basically everything else. It's one of only two clauses in the constitution that bothers to explain why it's there, it has more commas than any sentence in the English language should be written in, and it's in some kind of ultra-passive voice.
I dunno, it just bugs me.
Well, the war on drugs is less effective than attempts at stopping the illegal gun trade, soooo...
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.