Justices agree on right to own guns

[Milton Bradley]

Well, right back to demonizing I see.


Yeah, we want children to be able to shoot up the school yards.


Could you guys be any more disingenuous?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, right back to demonizing I see. Yeah, we want children to be able to shoot up the school yards. Could you guys be any more disingenuous?

If you do not want it, I believe you when you say so. But, since what you do want makes it so much more likely to happen, we are left to conclude that you believe the potential harm you foresee in limiting access to arms is greater. Can you please explain the circumstance you foresee that are worse than the unnecessary death and destruction already present? Can you provide some evidence that that outcome is likely? "The Founders said so" is no more convincing than "The Church said so". If the Founders bequethed us a system that in current circumstances creates a situation that is a net loss to society, why not alter it? If it is a net gain, explain how that actually is rather than just appealing to the intent of men that could not conceive of our modern reality.If you have no interest in providing some kind of logical support for the likelihood of some real harm, then it is a logical conclusion that though you may not want an 11 year old to shoot up his school yard, you don't really care if he does just so long as you can buy any gun you want. Put up or shut up.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you do not want it, I believe you when you say so.

Somehow I still have great trouble believing that, I guess it's because of your words, and intent.

Quote by: lsbskins1 But, since what you do want makes it so much more likely to happen, we are left to conclude that you believe the potential harm you foresee in limiting access to arms is greater.

Congratulations, you have just arrived at an epiphany, and I/we only had to tell you that, what, two, three hundred times now?

Quote by: lsbskins1 Can you please explain the circumstance you foresee that are worse than the unnecessary death and destruction already present?

Yes. My death, and insecurity, due to appeasing undue fears of people obviosuly not cut out to live in a free society.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Can you provide some evidence that that outcome is likely?

Could you agenda be articulated any clearer? ( Obviously, I know it could, but the starting point is just as scary as the rest, so just reflect at your own ideals to understand what it is that I fear. )

Quote by: lsbskins1 "The Founders said so" is no more convincing than "The Church said so". If the Founders bequethed us a system that in current circumstances creates a situation that is a net loss to society, why not alter it?

False premise.


When the Founders "said so" they not only lived under the tyranny of a very real tyrant, they also arrived at a consensus with their contemporaries, and they all ratified the contract.


Nobody opposes altering it, again, that's either your thick headedness, or you attempting to demonize again.


Alter the document in the legal manor, or step away from the Constitution.

Quote by: lsbskins1 If it is a net gain, explain how that actually is rather than just appealing to the intent of men that could not conceive of our modern reality.If you have no interest in providing some kind of logical support for the likelihood of some real harm, then it is a logical conclusion that though you may not want an 11 year old to shoot up his school yard, you don't really care if he does just so long as you can buy any gun you want. Put up or shut up.

That has been provided. You know what I fear, why I fear it/them, and why I feel I have the right to protect myself from it/them.


What say your side start answering some questions?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Somehow I still have great trouble believing that, I guess it's because of your words, and intent. Congratulations, you have just arrived at an epiphany, and I/we only had to tell you that, what, two, three hundred times now? Yes. My death, and insecurity, due to appeasing undue fears of people obviosuly not cut out to live in a free society. Could you agenda be articulated any clearer? ( Obviously, I know it could, but the starting point is just as scary as the rest, so just reflect at your own ideals to understand what it is that I fear. ) False premise. When the Founders "said so" they not only lived under the tyranny of a very real tyrant, they also arrived at a consensus with their contemporaries, and they all ratified the contract. Nobody opposes altering it, again, that's either your thick headedness, or you attempting to demonize again. Alter the document in the legal manor, or step away from the Constitution. That has been provided. You know what I fear, why I fear it/them, and why I feel I have the right to protect myself from it/them. What say your side start answering some questions?

My side answers questions all the time, they just are not the answers that you want, so you pretend that we do not. Lets make this plain: If the question is why don't we repeal the 2nd Amendment to achieve our aims, the answer to that question is that because it is Constitutionally and legally possible to achieve our aims without doing so. If you do not agree with that answer, prove it wrong, don't just insist it is "not an answer". It is an answer.

And, you just said you consider the possibility that someone may shoot YOU in the commision of a crime as more consequential to you than the possibility that hundreds or thousands of individuals may lose their lives unnecessarily. So, I can now accuse you of being self centered and unconcerned with the welfare of your fellow citizens because of words that you typed, not because of some imagined fantasy on my part.

[Red]

Ah, I believe I have begun to understand. You do not want guns in the hands of the people because there is a potential for violence and death. Guns end life, and thus they should not be allowed in our country. That is your premise, is it not? Assuming so, I would ask another question: Do abortions end life?
Regardless of the actual 'living status' of an unborn baby, there is an indisputable fact that when semen reaches egg, a baby will be born. The baby will grow into a human being, and begin arguing about gun control laws on the internet.
So, I inquire of a fair minded, compassionate soul like yourself: Is it not hypocritical to assert lawfulness in indefinite termination of human life, and unlawfulness at the potential preservation? Or do you suggest that taking the life of one who would take several is not 'preserving'? Either way, your hypocrisy demands resolving.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, right back to demonizing I see. Yeah, we want children to be able to shoot up the school yards. Could you guys be any more disingenuous?

Oh stop it, Milton. Gawd you're such a whiner.

The example was specifically for Red's point that without guns only the strongest will survive, my point being that guns make it a tad TOO easy, to where a small child, if armed, can kill several people from a distance. Even the strongest unarmed man might have difficulty with that challenge.

And to your constant whine about law abiding citizens being punished for the irresponsibility of a few, the world is filled with activities that are highly regulated because enough people abused a privilege and made it necessary to regulate everyone else. Driving a car being just one example.

Quote by: Red Ah, I believe I have begun to understand. You do not want guns in the hands of the people because there is a potential for violence and death.

The potential??? Red, it's the one and only thing guns were invented and designed to do... cause violent death from a distance.

Quote by: Red Guns end life, and thus they should not be allowed in our country.

And ONCE AGAIN, no one is talking about getting rid of all guns... just trying to change our reckless lust for them and to make it just a bit harder to acquire. You don't need 20 Ar-16s and Kalashnikovs to go hunting or to protect your home.

Quote by: Red That is your premise, is it not? Assuming so, I would ask another question: Do abortions end life?

We already have a whole other thread for that discussion, thanks.

Quote by: Red So, I inquire of a fair minded, compassionate soul like yourself: Is it not hypocritical to assert lawfulness in indefinite termination of human life, and unlawfulness at the potential preservation?

How many ways do I have to say it... your premise is flawed. Guns don't save lives, they take them. By your logic, the U.S., being awash awash in more guns per capita than almost any other country, should be the safest, right?

Yet the exact opposite is true. We are among the most deadly and murderous, specifically BECAUSE we are so well armed. Therefore, being the one who is promoting mass gun ownership, it is YOU who is promoting the taking of human lives, not me.

Resolve that.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 My side answers questions all the time, they just are not the answers that you want,

Yeah, the questions you supply to yourselves as you sidetrack the discussion, and dodge the direct question.


I've seen it too many times.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Lets make this plain: If the question is why don't we repeal the 2nd Amendment to achieve our aims, the answer to that question is that because it is Constitutionally and legally possible to achieve our aims without doing so.

Exactly. In the Culture of Corruption the seditious swine you guys elect to office created, there is no need to appeal to the democracy you preach, just grease the right wheels, and poof, instant distopia.


Like I said, subversives operating inside the country. A direct threat to our Constitution, our laws, and our very lives.

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you do not agree with that answer, prove it wrong, don't just insist it is "not an answer". It is an answer.

It's the incorrect answer for people who are not tyrants, and bullies.

Quote by: lsbskins1 And, you just said you consider the possibility that someone may shoot YOU in the commision of a crime as more consequential to you than the possibility that hundreds or thousands of individuals may lose their lives unnecessarily.

So, you constantly risk life, and limb to rescue others?


I thought not. As usual, you just want to volunteer me, or ask other to saccrifice.

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, I can now accuse you of being self centered and unconcerned with the welfare of your fellow citizens because of words that you typed, not because of some imagined fantasy on my part.

Wrong. As usual. Well, I suspect you will do so in the same disingenuous manor in which you portray me when you take the liberty of speaking for me, I don't really expect that to change. I'm talking to Liberals after all. But it is nice that you sought clarification in this instance, as it truly indicates who is telling the truth, and who is an agenda driven monster intent to misrepresent to forward their own agenda.


However, you could accurately say that I refuse to put my self interest behind that of other people on a daily basis, and I do not intend to suffer for other peoples misfortune.


I don't object to you doing so, but try working with others content to take on that burden with you.

[Red]

Quote by: Sonart . The potential??? Red, it's the one and only thing guns were invented and designed to do... cause violent death from a distance.

Yes, and forks were made to ingest food, but does that mean they must be used? Just because the path has been cut doesn't mean that people will follow it. People have morals and ethics, those are what stop people from raping and killing; not laws, as clearly shown on a daily basis. People will kill regardless of what they use. The solution is not to take away a plain for equality in life or death situations, but to make it universal. Make it equal for everyone. Is that not what the pro-choice seek?

And ONCE AGAIN, no one is talking about getting rid of all guns... just trying to change our reckless lust for them and to make it just a bit harder to acquire. You don't need 20 Ar-16s and Kalashnikovs to go hunting or to protect your home.

That's like saying you don't need multiple TVs in your home, or multiple cars in your garage. Good luck legislating that one.

We already have a whole other thread for that discussion, thanks.

So that means you must sidestep the question. I see.

How many ways do I have to say it... your premise is flawed. Guns don't save lives, they take them. By your logic, the U.S., being awash awash in more guns per capita than almost any other country, should be the safest, right? Yet the exact opposite is true. We are among the most deadly and murderous, specifically BECAUSE we are so well armed. Therefore, being the one who is promoting mass gun ownership, it is YOU who is promoting the taking of human lives, not me. Resolve that.

You will have to repeat until I am satisfied in your response. So far I find little convincing in your point of view, and your intolerance of mine is not an aide to your endeavors.

Yes, we have many violent crimes committed in our country. We also have the most freedom, and the most education, the healthiest free market, and one of the highest prosperity rates on the globe. We are the most racially diverse, and the founder of most modern technologies. But may I remind you that a healthy amount of our violent crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, and registered criminals.

May I also remind you that you sidestepped my question, and I expect it to be answered. Thank you for your effort towards competence.

[lsbskins1]

Milton -

So, you plainly can not support your contention that there is a vital liberty issue at hand, or you would have done so. You can not support your contention that the Constitution protects your right to not have every weapon possible available to you because you have not done so. You have admitted that you consider it more important to allow you to have access to any gun you want, even though it is pretty well established fact that your solution to protecting yourself from crime is fantasy driven, ineffective clap-trap that costs more lives than it saves. And just because you believe it to be some sort of ordained right (which we have established is a theory that you can not support) and because I am not a Secret Service Agent who puts my life on the line every day, I can offer no valid opinion. Interesting train of logic, there.

[Milton Bradley]

So again, you won't speak to justify your own philosophy, but you there is no end to the words you'll put in my mouth in an attempt to discredit mine.


Gotcha.


If you would labor as much for wages, as you do to misunderstand us, you would be rich beyond belief under the system you criticize.


Then, you could afford to give it all to charity, and solve all the worlds problems.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So again, you won't speak to justify your own philosophy, but you there is no end to the words you'll put in my mouth in an attempt to discredit mine. Gotcha. If you would labor as much for wages, as you do to misunderstand us, you would be rich beyond belief under the system you criticize. Then, you could afford to give it all to charity, and solve all the worlds problems.

So again, after not supporting your own contentions, your project your own failings on to others. I am beginning to not be surprised. But, being ever patient I will ask again.

1) If you are going to insist that I am misunderstanding some vital liberty that is protected by being able to purchase assault rifles, please provide some evidence that this is true. That does not mean saying, "The Founders believed it to be so." It means providing some direct evidence that when a people live under a system that denies them access to these type of weapons, they live under less free conditions. Pretty simple.

2) If you are going to insist that having access to these weapons makes people safer from crime, please provide some evidence of this. This does not mean saying, "If I have a gun, I can shoot someone who is trying to kill me." It means providing some evidence that countries that limit access to guns suffer greater crime victimization rates and more citizens are seriously injured or killed because the criminals still get what is denied to the law abiding citizen.


If you insist that I believe that the Constitution is frozen in time and the Founders believed that it covered all questions and/or legal issues possible, you are just flat wrong. If you insist that the only way to legally legislate on an issue that was touched on directly by the Constitution is to directly amend the Constitution, you are flat wrong. The truth of the matter is that the Founders expected the Constitution to be a guiding document and expected Congress to specifically legislate on defining issues. The Judicial branch was established with the goal of making sure the Legislative branch did not create self contradictory statutes.Here is a pretty simple legal truth. If a law is passed that you feel impinges on a Constitutionally protected right, you must petition the SCOTUS and YOU must demonstrate how that right is harmed. The burden is yours. Get to it or shut up.

[Red]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So again, after not supporting your own contentions, your project your own failings on to others. I am beginning to not be surprised. But, being ever patient I will ask again.

You make my stomach hurt. The hypocrisy in that statement is nearly sidesplitting.

1) If you are going to insist that I am misunderstanding some vital liberty that is protected by being able to purchase assault rifles, please provide some evidence that this is true. That does not mean saying, "The Founders believed it to be so." It means providing some direct evidence that when a people live under a system that denies them access to these type of weapons, they live under less free conditions. Pretty simple.

What's also pretty simple is the second amendment. It plainly reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
'Shall not be infringed' sounds like a 'hands off' kind of statement.

You also made an interestingly contradictory statement above. You said "Vital Liberty". This land wasn't created for 'vital liberties'. This land wasn't created so people could have a piechart of options. This land was made for complete and utter freedom of choice, so long as your actions do not interfere with the freedoms of others. As far as I can see, my owning deadly weapons (in whatever form, I do have a plethora of knives, which also kill people) has not killed anyone, or stolen their freedoms. However, you seem eager to remove the ability for me to enjoy such freedoms. The question is not 'Why do you need', it is 'what do you want'. If you begin saying that because people do not need, they do not deserve, then we might as not begin removing television sets, cars, yachts and art from people's homes.
What congress and the legislative branch are not here to do is judge according to need.

2) If you are going to insist that having access to these weapons makes people safer from crime, please provide some evidence of this. This does not mean saying, "If I have a gun, I can shoot someone who is trying to kill me." It means providing some evidence that countries that limit access to guns suffer greater crime victimization rates and more citizens are seriously injured or killed because the criminals still get what is denied to the law abiding citizen.

Well, seeing as neither ideal has been met, all we can do is speculate. But once again, you are judging people's lives and intentions by stereotypes and personal fantasy. Unfortunately, your side of the debate is just as plausable as mine, and hardly as practical. Luckily, in the land of freedom, people have the right to choose. So, according to the above statement on your part, you can either be secure in owning the highest weapon in escalation, or become victim to it. Because there will be no way to disarm the criminal.

If you insist that I believe that the Constitution is frozen in time and the Founders believed that it covered all questions and/or legal issues possible, you are just flat wrong. If you insist that the only way to legally legislate on an issue that was touched on directly by the Constitution is to directly amend the Constitution, you are flat wrong. The truth of the matter is that the Founders expected the Constitution to be a guiding document and expected Congress to specifically legislate on defining issues.

In this statement, a paradox lies. You say that the constitution is insufficient, yet you also say that you need not amend the constitution to make it adequate. Following such circular reasoning, one would conclude that the Constitution is not needed at all, and may be factored out, regardless of the heart of the debate being present in the second amendment (found in the constitution). So, what you just said is that the courts are more qualified to make laws for us than ourselves, and they should not be restrained in any way by the constitution.

The Judicial branch was established with the goal of making sure the Legislative branch did not create self contradictory statutes.

Hey, can we create one of those for you?

Here is a pretty simple legal truth. If a law is passed that you feel impinges on a Constitutionally protected right, you must petition the SCOTUS and YOU must demonstrate how that right is harmed. The burden is yours. Get to it or shut up.

Interesting that you might say that. You see, we did already. I'm sorry, you must have trouble reading with outdated prescription glasses... (the socialist medical queue is pretty long these days.) But the title of this discussion quite plainly reads "Justices agree on right to own guns". So, allow me to end this discussion with your own reasoning:
Guns are bad. Guns should be legislated against.
Legislatures are not bound by the constitution. Legislatures may legislate however they wish to 'define matters'.
The legislatures have 'defined' that guns may not be legislated against.

I, for one, see that as an end of your means through your logic. But then again, I am but a bitter man who clings to his bible and gun. I must have little intellect, and thus cannot have trapped you in your own argument. Good day.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Red Yes, and forks were made to ingest food, but does that mean they must be used?

Yeah, great point. Alas, I'm afraid guns would probably be inadequate for planting vegetables, grating cheese or sewing curtains. Alas, when they DO get used, it's to kill or to practice killing.

Quote by: Red People have morals and ethics, those are what stop people from raping and killing; not laws, as clearly shown on a daily basis.

{{SIGH}} How many ways do I have to say it? Guns apparently make it far too easy to step across that line, because, ONCE AGAIN, the United States, which has more guns per capita than almost all other civilized countries, also murders more people per capita than almost all other civilized countries. So we're either really weak, morally and ethically, or we simply have too many guns.

You tell me.

Quote by: Red That's like saying you don't need multiple TVs in your home, or multiple cars in your garage. Good luck legislating that one.

It's not like saying that at all because TV and cars aren't made for the sole purpose of quickly and easily killing people.

Quote by: Red So that means you must sidestep the question. I see.

You're the one sidestepping the issue by introducing a red herring. The legally sanctioned ending of life -- be it by medical abortion, medically assisted suicide or capital punishment -- is an entirely different question than the rampant extra-legal deaths by gunfire that plague this country.

And by the way, I believe in legalized abortion, medically assisted suicide and the death penalty, although I think the latter is economically impractical. If you wish to debate any of those, find the appropriate threads or start a new one.

Quote by: Red You will have to repeat until I am satisfied in your response. So far I find little convincing in your point of view, and your intolerance of mine is not an aide to your endeavors.

I've posted the figures and statistics. You can go back through this thread and review them on your own time.

Quote by: Red Yes, we have many violent crimes committed in our country. We also have the most freedom, and the most education, the healthiest free market, and one of the highest prosperity rates on the globe. We are the most racially diverse, and the founder of most modern technologies.

Where do you get this jingoistic claptrap? I love my country too, but it's far, far from being the shining beacon of all that is swell that it used to be.

We don't have the most freedom because unbridled freedom has proven disastrous... you want freedom, go to Brazil, but don't whine about promptly getting swallowed up by an unregulated bigger fish and ending up among the 80% working poor.

We absolutely don't have the best education any more.

The healthiest free market? You have to be kidding. "America has the greatest inequality of income and wealth in the industrialized world:" Which has only gotten worse since this 1991 comparison.

We have among the lowest percentage of citizens with healthcare, the highest healthcare expenditures, we're about 10th in life expectancy, 10th in infant mortality and child death rates, and murder.

And finally, even if these things were true, how does that justify our being the most violent, murderous advanced nation? Being rich and well educated makes killing more of our fellow citizens ok to you??? I would have thought it would be the opposite.

Quote by: Red But may I remind you that a healthy amount of our violent crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, and registered criminals.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Immigrants, legal and otherwise, commit proportionally less crime than do Americans.

The Myth of Immigrant Criminality

.

[Red]

Quote by: Sonart . Yeah, great point. Alas, I'm afraid guns would probably be inadequate for planting vegetables, grating cheese or sewing curtains. Alas, when they DO get used, it's to kill or to practice killing.

Yes, guns are made to kill things. Thank you for re-establishing that. So in assuming that guns are only present in society to kill, does that mean a police officer is a murderer?

{{SIGH}} How many ways do I have to say it? Guns apparently make it far too easy to step across that line, because, ONCE AGAIN, the United States, which has more guns per capita than almost all other civilized countries, also murders more people per capita than almost all other civilized countries. So we're either really weak, morally and ethically, or we simply have too many guns. You tell me.

As a matter of fact, I do believe that we are weak ethically and morally. I believe that this is due to lack of punishment, which would be a fault in our judicial system.
I base this belief in the fact that our 'Most Murders Per Capita' are committed largely by drug addicts, people on heavy medication, people with questioned sanity, convicted criminals, and homeless individuals... People who have the lowest ethics and morals.

It's not like saying that at all because TV and cars aren't made for the sole purpose of quickly and easily killing people.

Nope, it's not. TV's don't kill people, But they do show a lot of unrestricted killing, pornography, and lawlessness. I wonder if this has to with our moral and ethical deficiency.

You're the one sidestepping the issue by introducing a red herring. The legally sanctioned ending of life -- be it by medical abortion, medically assisted suicide or capital punishment -- is an entirely different question than the rampant extra-legal deaths by gunfire that plague this country.

No, I am very much sticking to the issue, by answering paragraph after paragraph of on topic material. What I did was draw a contrast between two different kinds of killing to reconcile your intentions. Apparently you were upset with my comparison.

And by the way, I believe in legalized abortion, medically assisted suicide and the death penalty, although I think the latter is economically impractical. If you wish to debate any of those, find the appropriate threads or start a new one.

You seem so grieved when I bring up Abortion. I'll save that for our other thread, but on the topic of the death penalty, I find that the solution to it's 'economic inefficiency' is simple as a twenty-five cent .22 round. Ironic that we should be talking about guns.

I've posted the figures and statistics. You can go back through this thread and review them on your own time.

What you've posted were unsupported and dissatisfactory.

Where do you get this jingoistic claptrap? I love my country too, but it's far, far from being the shining beacon of all that is swell that it used to be. We don't have the most freedom because unbridled freedom has proven disastrous... you want freedom, go to Brazil, but don't whine about promptly getting swallowed up by an unregulated bigger fish and ending up among the 80% working poor.

Ironic that I would now be told to go to another country by someone in opposition to a law that is on my side of the argument.

True, an unregulated country like Brazil is far from ideal. Unfortunately I did not articulate my point well. What I meant when I said 'we have the most freedom' is that we have the most widespread freedom; available to peoples of all races, backgrounds, and even legitimacy.

We absolutely don't have [url="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html"][b]the best The healthiest free market? You have to be kidding. "America has the greatest inequality of income and wealth in the industrialized world:" Which has only gotten worse since this 1991 comparison.

Like said above, I meant these statements in the sense that we offer the most opportunity to the most diversity found on the planet. Hand in hand with the weak moral and ethical status we boast in this nation, I believe the reason we are failing is because our students do not appreciate and education like our competitors do... regardless, the opportunities and diversity in education are very much still present.

We have among the lowest percentage of citizens with healthcare, the highest healthcare expenditures, we're about 10th in life expectancy, 10th in infant mortality and child death rates, and murder. And finally, even if these things were true, how does that justify our being the most violent, murderous advanced nation? Being rich and well educated makes killing more of our fellow citizens ok to you??? I would have thought it would be the opposite.

True, the scales do not balance under those weights, but your statistics reflect an unfair contrast. Our nation is fantastically larger than most competing superpowers, rendering the numbers lackluster in vitality.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Immigrants, legal and otherwise, commit proportionally less crime than do Americans. The Myth of Immigrant Criminality .

I am dissatisfied with the legitimacy of these sources, but nonetheless, your first link has entertaining disputes of by users concerning the articles validity (found below the article), and your second link contradicts your argument that our crime rates are surging.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Red You make my stomach hurt. The hypocrisy in that statement is nearly sidesplitting. What's also pretty simple is the second amendment. It plainly reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 'Shall not be infringed' sounds like a 'hands off' kind of statement. You also made an interestingly contradictory statement above. You said "Vital Liberty". This land wasn't created for 'vital liberties'. This land wasn't created so people could have a piechart of options. This land was made for complete and utter freedom of choice, so long as your actions do not interfere with the freedoms of others. As far as I can see, my owning deadly weapons (in whatever form, I do have a plethora of knives, which also kill people) has not killed anyone, or stolen their freedoms. However, you seem eager to remove the ability for me to enjoy such freedoms. The question is not 'Why do you need', it is 'what do you want'. If you begin saying that because people do not need, they do not deserve, then we might as not begin removing television sets, cars, yachts and art from people's homes. What congress and the legislative branch are not here to do is judge according to need. Well, seeing as neither ideal has been met, all we can do is speculate. But once again, you are judging people's lives and intentions by stereotypes and personal fantasy. Unfortunately, your side of the debate is just as plausable as mine, and hardly as practical. Luckily, in the land of freedom, people have the right to choose. So, according to the above statement on your part, you can either be secure in owning the highest weapon in escalation, or become victim to it. Because there will be no way to disarm the criminal. In this statement, a paradox lies. You say that the constitution is insufficient, yet you also say that you need not amend the constitution to make it adequate. Following such circular reasoning, one would conclude that the Constitution is not needed at all, and may be factored out, regardless of the heart of the debate being present in the second amendment (found in the constitution). So, what you just said is that the courts are more qualified to make laws for us than ourselves, and they should not be restrained in any way by the constitution. Hey, can we create one of those for you? Interesting that you might say that. You see, we did already. I'm sorry, you must have trouble reading with outdated prescription glasses... (the socialist medical queue is pretty long these days.) But the title of this discussion quite plainly reads "Justices agree on right to own guns". So, allow me to end this discussion with your own reasoning: Guns are bad. Guns should be legislated against. Legislatures are not bound by the constitution. Legislatures may legislate however they wish to 'define matters'. The legislatures have 'defined' that guns may not be legislated against. I, for one, see that as an end of your means through your logic. But then again, I am but a bitter man who clings to his bible and gun. I must have little intellect, and thus cannot have trapped you in your own argument. Good day.

I really do hate it when someone comes late to the debate and proceeds to return to already covered arguments and proceeds to use the "throw as much crap at the wall as you can and see what sticks" style.

Let's begin with the 2nd Amendment and the issue of what law is in dispute all together. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that citizens do not have unlimited and unregulated access to arms. They do not agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So, in fact, when I speak to Milton, who has been part of this debate over multiple threads and really over multiple years, I know and he knows that what we are discussing are limitations already in place that he disagrees with and my desire for even further limitations. I doubt Milton would agree that the law as it exists agrees with his desires, so your aguement that I have contradicted myself by saying that standing law is "with me" is pretty wrong, especially in context with who I was addressing and our overall attitudes.

Let's also consider the long dance of discussions about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and your contention that it's point is pretty plain. The multiple threads over multiple years would also tend to put the cabash on your contention that the meaning is plain. Suffice it to say that we would be a loggerheads over whether "shall not be infringed" or "well regulated" would be the phrase of utmost importance, and what those phrases mean and possibly meant to the Founders. In the end, it comes down to figuring out how to balance between ensuring that your right to be free of oppressive government does not interfere with my right to be "secure in my person". The easy access to guns in this country does affect one of my vital liberties, the right to life. I don't care if you want to define the liberties at issue as vital or just regular. Either way, I do have a liberty threatened by you and others insisting that there can be no limitation on your liberty to own whatever and how-ever-many guns you choose. If there was no threat to my liberty, if there was no logical reason to hear these challenges, the SCOTUS would have never granted Cert a single time, except in cases where access to arms were limited and they would have always ruled in favor of the private gun owner. Alas, for you, this is not the case.

It is established law that there are and can be limitations on that liberty, because in exercising that liberty, you can and do affect someone else's liberty rights in another protected area. What we are left with now is figuring out what limitations preserve the best balance. You might not like it, Milton might not like it, but you can't wish away my rights to satisfy your desires. And, as long as your liberty to be secure in your life and liberty is maintained and mine is as well, we need not amend the Constitution to maintain the proper Constitutional balance.

So, I will ask you and Milton again to get to the job of showing how limiting your access to arms, in fact, makes you less secure in your personal liberty by providing examples of situations where my ideal destroys that liberty, or get to accepting the fact that the law can and should limit that access because my side has presented, over and over, real world examples of how your ideal seriously harms the liberties of others.

Thank You.