and I've got to also note a comment he got:
first, let me say that i hate the fact that people resort to the second amendment (or any amendment) on the rights to bear arms. It is a flimsy excuse.
'Excuse' meaning "Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't actually mean anything, y'know.
As some of you may know, the constitution also implicitly allowed for slavery for quite some time. If you look at he enumeration clause where representatives are apportioned, slaves are called “other persons” and are counted as 3/5 of a whole person. Does that make the constitution right?
I'm thinking he believes that the founders overall believed that blacks weren't really human. The 3/5 clause was to keep slave states from having overwhelming numbers in the House. Recognizing slavery was a nasty compromise needed to get some of the slave states to sign on. And it's got not a damn thing to do with this argument.
We are living in far different times. People don’t need to use firearms to kill for food. We have advanced beyond that.
The ownership of arms was never about killing for food, that's just a bonus. It was and is about the right of a free people to arms.
I would be able to get behind the fact that gays can use guns in self defense
except that we only would need to defend ourselves if other people had guns. And other people have guns because they are so easy to get in this country.
So if some jackass with a tire iron wants to play drums on your head, that doesn't count as something needing defending against, I guess. Or playing 'turn the fag into a seive' with an icepick. And the 'easy to get' doesn't seem to matter in a lot of places, Britain for instance; handguns banned there, bad guys still get them.
Lets face it,most people walking down the street in any metropolitan area (except maybe Texas) are not carrying guns in self defense. Hell, if any person tried to get into a gay bar - or any bar - with a gun, security would boot them out.
Well, let's see... majority of states have concealed-carry laws, so I think it's not just Texas that a lot of people choose to carry for self-defense. Oh, and most of those places the law doesn't allow you to carry into a bar. And what's that go to do with the general 'carry for SD' matter, anyway?
Sure, there will always be a black market for guns and some will be available for thugs but dont you think that having a ban would significantly cut down on the number of guns on the street?
Go to Smallest Minority and search 'Britain', see what you find. Doesn't seem to be working too well over there. Same in Canada last time I checked. And other countries, for that matter.
People dont use guns for hunting anymore (except for the prairies) People use guns to murder and loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder.
Oh, for God's sake, so nobody hunts unless they're in Little House on the Prarie? No mountains or forest or swamp? And, again, hunting has not a damn thing to do with this: this case was on the right to arms of a free people. Specifically brought- in this case- primarily on handguns, but as the majority opinion made clear, not limited to that. Oh, and people also use knives and cars and bats and bottles and hands and the homicidal impulse to kill; planning on banning all of those? To say that 'loosening restrictions on handguns is supporting murder' is flat idiotic, you might as well say 'loosening restrictions on tasers is supporting torture'. Of puppies and small children, at that.
Comment by kojoto
I didn't want to take up a big space at GP's place with a long comment, but this just called out to me to be dealt with.