(06-29-2016 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Crowder (along with Dana Loesch) are the GOATs on this issue. These 4 videos should all be required viewing/prerequisities for leftists before discussing guns, as they give them the baseline education to enable us all to discuss the issue in a productive manner.

(06-29-2016 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Crowder (along with Dana Loesch) are the GOATs on this issue. These 4 videos should all be required viewing/prerequisities for leftists before discussing guns, as they give them the baseline education to enable us all to discuss the issue in a productive manner.

(06-29-2016 02:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:26 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 01:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Was the first amendment just for town cryers, printing presses, and Protestants?

(06-29-2016 02:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Yes the constitution has to be interpreted.

(06-29-2016 02:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Yes the constitution has to be interpreted.

(06-29-2016 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Crowder (along with Dana Loesch) are the GOATs on this issue. These 4 videos should all be required viewing/prerequisities for leftists before discussing guns, as they give them the baseline education to enable us all to discuss the issue in a productive manner.

(06-29-2016 03:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Yes the constitution has to be interpreted.

So does that statement.

It seems obvious that the individual right to bear arms exists, not in conjunction with military service or anything else because of 250 years of consistent interpretations. When we created a standing military, there was no termination of the 2nd amendment, nor even any real conversation of doing so at or near the time.

So while it has to be interpreted into a modern context, we don't simply act as if it was written yesterday and we are interpreting it today.

REASONABLE limitations have been allowed for most of our 250 years, and circumstances (the times) will dictate what is and is not reasonable... and THAT is something that must continually be interpreted... but the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms has consistently been upheld... and can ONLY be taken by 'due process'. Whether it be substantive (a booby trap or a fully automatic weapon or claymore or nuke is too indiscriminate to serve a reasonably lawful purpose that doesn't unduly risk the lives of innocent people) or specific... i.e. Joe has been convicted of a crime and/or a judge has issued an order against Joe.

There is a difference between someone who uses a weapon for a bad purpose, and someone who uses a weapon correctly, but still (because of how the weapon operates) injures lots of people. The former is already a crime, and the latter has already been shown to be a 'reasonable' restriction. Single pull single shot weapons have (for centuries) been considered 'reasonable' when used as a lawful person would.

(06-29-2016 03:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  isn't that the same guy who made the democratic socialist video? pretty clear to me that he only repeats partisan/trollish talking points and is not worthy of any legitimate commentary.

(06-29-2016 03:47 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  isn't that the same guy who made the democratic socialist video? pretty clear to me that he only repeats partisan/trollish talking points and is not worthy of any legitimate commentary.

Ah yes, the "democratic" socialism video. That was a classic and really got the leftist's jimmies rustled. As if you put the word "democratic" in front of a horrible idea, that somehow makes it better. Tell me more about,

"democratic" racism
"democratic" genocide
"democratic" rape

(06-29-2016 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:47 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  isn't that the same guy who made the democratic socialist video? pretty clear to me that he only repeats partisan/trollish talking points and is not worthy of any legitimate commentary.

Ah yes, the "democratic" socialism video. That was a classic and really got the leftist's jimmies rustled. As if you put the word "democratic" in front of a horrible idea, that somehow makes it better. Tell me more about,

"democratic" racism
"democratic" genocide
"democratic" rape

like I said, he didn't have one intelligent thought in that video. and yet the cons on here stupidly defended him. there are legitimate ways to attack DS, but that was clearly not one of them.