The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

No. Not at all. There's just a lack of bollocks and it concedes you the field. Fannying about with mental health issues and stricter background checks and banning assault weapons and limiting ammo clips just lays an expense on the underlying population with no economic utility and thus creates more tension, anger and frustration.

With 300 million guns in circulation I fully understand your position.

With no guns in circulation your position is idiotic notwithstanding knives, dressing gown cords and subtle poisons.

The argument against the 2nd is that repealing it would start to move your killing and injury rate to European levels. Possibly not immediately.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The government DEFINES what 'illegal' is. If the SC disagrees with you regarding the second amendment, it's you that's wrong, not them - by definition. It's just how our system works.

Cycloptichorn

Not exactly. The rulings of the Supreme Court certainly have the force of law.

But if they make an erroneous ruling, they are still the ones who are wrong, even though their erroneous ruling has the force of law.

We have no other body that is allowed to define what is and isn't an 'erroneous' ruling. You may have a personal opinion about it, but nobody gives a **** about that, so it's not relevant to a conversation about national policy.

Cycloptichorn

All Supreme's must abide by the Constitution, those that do not abide must be removed from the court.

BillRM wrote:

Where oh where is this run away murder rate that we need to junk the 2 amendment over my friend?

so you think the 12000 or so gun homicides, 20000 gun suicides and 100000 gun injuries every year is just about right and we shouldn't do anything to try to decrease those numbers?

what business does anyone have denying them their right to have a gun?

oralloy wrote:

JTT wrote:

Specifically targeting civilians, as the US did and has done, numerous times, is a war crime.

Nonsense. The US has not targeted civilians in the past hundred years.

This from the ignorant semen slurper who doesn't even know when the US slaughtered a hundred thousand or a few hundred thousand Filipinos.

Quote:

Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam [Hardcover]
Nick Turse

Book Description
Release date: January 15, 2013
Based on classified documents and first-person interviews, a startling history of the American war on Vietnamese civilians

Americans have long been taught that events such as the notorious My Lai massacre were isolated incidents in the Vietnam War, carried out by "a few bad apples." But as award‑winning journalist and historian Nick Turse demonstrates in this groundbreaking investigation, violence against Vietnamese noncombatants was not at all exceptional during the conflict. Rather, it was pervasive and systematic, the predictable consequence of orders to "kill anything that moves."

Drawing on more than a decade of research in secret Pentagon files and extensive interviews with American veterans and Vietnamese survivors, Turse reveals for the first time how official policies resulted in millions of innocent civilians killed and wounded. In shocking detail, he lays out the workings of a military machine that made crimes in almost every major American combat unit all but inevitable. Kill Anything That Moves takes us from archives filled with Washington's long-suppressed war crime investigations to the rural Vietnamese hamlets that bore the brunt of the war; from boot camps where young American soldiers learned to hate all Vietnamese to bloodthirsty campaigns like Operation Speedy Express, in which a general obsessed with body counts led soldiers to commit what one participant called "a My Lai a month."

Thousands of Vietnam books later, Kill Anything That Moves, devastating and definitive, finally brings us face‑to‑face with the truth of a war that haunts Americans to this day.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0805086919

The same thing happened in Japan, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia, East Timor, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, ... .

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The government DEFINES what 'illegal' is. If the SC disagrees with you regarding the second amendment, it's you that's wrong, not them - by definition. It's just how our system works.

Cycloptichorn

Not exactly. The rulings of the Supreme Court certainly have the force of law.

But if they make an erroneous ruling, they are still the ones who are wrong, even though their erroneous ruling has the force of law.

We have no other body that is allowed to define what is and isn't an 'erroneous' ruling.

You may have a personal opinion about it, but nobody gives a **** about that, so it's not relevant to a conversation about national policy.

Cycloptichorn

I'm a retard. Ask any modern mathematician to define a retard.

H2O MAN wrote:

All Supreme's must abide by the Constitution, those that do not abide must be removed from the court.

Your argument is a Tautology - the Supremes DECIDE what the Constitution means;

barring a gross violation carried out by all of them simultaneously, which has yet to happen in the history of our system, nobody is left to decide that they aren't abiding by the Constitution.

Cycloptichorn

No. Their job is to enforce the meaning that the Constitution already has.

I'm capable of deciding that they are not abiding by the Constitution. And upon reaching such a decision, the First Amendment protects my right to speak out against them.

Congress is also capable of making the same decisions that I am. And the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.

If he gets 50.01% of the voters to agree.

As an isolated individual he has no rights to deny anybody anything.

You have proclaimed a right on the basis of votes.

Hence, by your own logic, it's a hearts and minds battle settled by counting votes. At the moment you are bullying a minority. And will continue to do so as long as supporters of the 2nd are on the same side as you.

Which they obviously are.

Frank Apisa is an outright liar.

oralloy wrote:

No. Their job is to enforce the meaning that the Constitution already has.

This is a meaningless statement.

oralloy wrote:

I'm capable of deciding that they are not abiding by the Constitution. And upon reaching such a decision, the First Amendment protects my right to speak out against them.

This is true, but then again, anyone can hold and voice any opinion they like. It doesn't make any difference when it comes to the application of the law.

oralloy wrote:

Congress is also capable of reaching the same conclusions that I am. And the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach Supreme Court justices.

This is true, but then again, Congress has never and likely will never use their impeachment power against a SC judge, simply for having a different opinion as to the meaning of the Constitution than you do.

The Constitution has a meaning that was intended by the people who wrote it (and intended by the people who subsequently amended it).

The only legitimate interpretations of the Constitution are those interpretations that comply with that intent.

And Congress will impeach not because of me, but because the Congressmen themselves will object to what the Supreme Court is doing.

Your opposition to civil rights is rather horrific,

Whether someone is killed with a gun verses some other tool doesn't make a lot of difference. They are still dead even if they died from some other weapon.

oralloy wrote:

The Constitution has a meaning that was intended by the people who wrote it (and intended by the people who subsequently amended it).

and then intended by the people who subsequently amended it again, and then again and ... .

oralloy wrote:

The only legitimate interpretations of the Constitution are those interpretations that comply with that intent.

That's right. That intent is that of the people who are currently using the constitution. That's how it has always been.

oralloy wrote:

And Congress will impeach not because of me, but because the Congressmen themselves will object to what the Supreme Court is doing.

It seems that your civics classes were as badly taught as your grammar classes.

oralloy wrote:

Whether someone is killed with a gun verses some other tool doesn't make a lot of difference. They are still dead even if they died from some other weapon.

And they are still less likely to die from other tools than they are with a gun.

Gun's compromise the majority of murders because they are an effective tool. Less effective tools don't kill as often simply because they are less effective.

Less effective tools don't kill as often simply because they are less effective.