Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case

I actually think that Watermark has 10,000 chimpanzees typing on computers all linked to his and when they come up with something readable he hits enter.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
This clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about, just spouting things from the middle hole of your ass.
Click to expand...

There aren't any vocal chords there. :(

There going to rule negative, and I will scream PWNT, and you gun nuts can all go home crying, realizing what you failed to unleash upon urban areas.
 
Watermark said:
There aren't any vocal chords there. :(

There going to rule negative, and I will scream PWNT, and you gun nuts can all go home crying, realizing what you failed to unleash upon urban areas.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you truly understand the serious negative backlash that would result from a 'collective' rights ruling.
 
Watermark is convinced that as a perverted, irreligious, fascist, that a collective govt. would pass him up when it came time to kill off the citizenry.
 
Yeah, whenever the evil government comes along, a bunch of rednecks with shotguns are going to save the nation.

Listen, if an evil government did come, it would first have to get a majority, and it would also have to get the military behind it. By that time, no amount of forcible resistance in the world is going to stop it.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, whenever the evil government comes along, a bunch of rednecks with shotguns are going to save the nation.

Listen, if an evil government did come, it would first have to get a majority, and it would also have to get the military behind it. By that time, no amount of forcible resistance in the world is going to stop it.
Click to expand...

Why would it have to get a majority? Even supposed good government does not need a majority and there is certainly no need to maintain majority support.

The military is not likely to be completely united behind it either. Further, the purpose of the 2nd was so we would need no large standing army. That's why it says the "being necessary for the Security of a free state." We now rely on a massive standing army and watch our freedoms vanish.

Even if the government could never becomes oppressive or one had no probable chance of resisting it we still possess a right to self defense. Limits to that that are not narrowly tailored and serving an overwhelming state interest should be thrown out.
 
Listen, I believe that we should pretty much devolve most of our military and only rely on militias. I am 100% pro-gun - for my area. I do not want to pre-empt other localities and states from deciding what is appropriate for their area.
 
Watermark said:
Listen, I believe that we should pretty much devolve most of our military and only rely on militias. I am 100% pro-gun - for my area. I do not want to pre-empt other localities and states from deciding what is appropriate for their area.
Click to expand...

Yes, I fully understand that you want to allow the government, in areas with large impoverished minority populations, to disarm the people. I understand how you hide behind local control here to mask your racism/classism where you have railed against local control as nativism on other issues.

Local governments should have no right to violate basic individual rights.

If the court strikes down this law, I am certain they will do so in a way that still allows local government some way to disarm poor minorities, so I don't know why you have your panties all in a bunch anyway.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, I fully understand that you want to allow the government, in areas with large impoverished minority populations, to disarm the people. I understand how you hide behind local control here to mask your racism/classism where you have railed against local control as nativism on other issues.

Local governments should have no right to violate basic individual rights.

If the court strikes down this law, I am certain they will do so in a way that still allows local government some way to disarm poor minorities, so I don't know why you have your panties all in a bunch anyway.
Click to expand...

Gun rights aren't basic rights.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, whenever the evil government comes along, a bunch of rednecks with shotguns are going to save the nation.

Listen, if an evil government did come, it would first have to get a majority, and it would also have to get the military behind it. By that time, no amount of forcible resistance in the world is going to stop it.
Click to expand...

Obviously, and I would not hang around either. Of course, some people would be unable to leave for whatever reason, and of course, the real travesty would be that a majority of government loving morons (like Midcan5 over at FP.com) would allow such a thing to come about.
 
Watermark said:
Gun rights aren't basic rights.
Click to expand...

Is the right to a knife a basic right? How about a stick? Must I limit myself to my hands only when I have no means, in reality, to limit an attacker?

The right of self defense is a basic right. Are you going to argue the right to marijuana is not a basic right? Are you gonna argue that the right to pornography is not a basic right? Maybe the right to rap/rock music is not a basic right?

You are ignoring the premise of the right and focusing only on concretes. This will always result in wishy-washy nonsensical positions based primarily on emotion. In the end you limit so many concrete applications of a right that the right is lost and worthless.
 
RStringfield said:
Is the right to a knife a basic right? How about a stick? Must I limit myself to my hands only when I have no means, in reality, to limit an attacker?

The right of self defense is a basic right. Are you going to argue the right to marijuana is not a basic right? Are you gonna argue that the right to pornography is not a basic right? Maybe the right to rap/rock music is not a basic right?

You are ignoring the premise of the right and focusing only on concretes. This will always result in wishy-washy nonsensical positions based primarily on emotion. In the end you limit so many concrete applications of a right that the right is lost and worthless.
Click to expand...

Is the right to shoot people a basic right?

ZOMG?!

You're playing the ridiculous equivalency game again, except this time with a bit of ridiculous libertarian reductio ad absurdum thrown in.
 
Watermark said:
Is the right to shoot people a basic right?
Click to expand...

If done in self defense, yes.

Watermark said:
ZOMG?!

You're playing the ridiculous equivalency game again, except this time with a bit of ridiculous libertarian reductio ad absurdum thrown in.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is reductio ad absurdum because you ignore the principle. For isntance, above you went to it because you fail to grasp that the principle of self defense is key. I've seen you do it before in gun rights arguments with "a right to a nuke" for the same reason. And you are the one arguing that a right to murder is morally equivalent to a right to self defense.
 
RStringfield said:
If done in self defense, yes.



Your entire argument is reductio ad absurdum because you ignore the principle. For isntance, above you went to it because you fail to grasp that the principle of self defense is key. I've seen you do it before in gun rights arguments with "a right to a nuke" for the same reason. And you are the one arguing that a right to murder is morally equivalent to a right to self defense.
Click to expand...


And what has this to do with gun privilidges?

You could defend yourself with a nuke too. Use a gun in a crowded apartment and you might as well anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top