The pics thread
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
SomeGuyDude
My name is sorrow.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,159
- 1
- 36
Because no one's posting essays they wrote or audio clips of them singing arias. Post up a picture of "here's the full-size Portal turret my girlfriend made for my birthday" and then you'll get some "MARRY HER RIGHT NOW" posts.
King Richard
Hello there
Eligos
Problem Yet to be Solved
divine_torture
leVel
Cronopio
Glorious Imperator
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Look what my Glock 17 squeezed out!
being a lefty, I'll have to switch out the slide stop lever to the extended. but I cant wait to shoot the little guy. He's so cute
being a lefty, I'll have to switch out the slide stop lever to the extended. but I cant wait to shoot the little guy. He's so cute
brooks55
Elixir of Sorrow
I really need to get a handgun soon, before laws start changing. Been meaning to do it for a while, just haven't got around to it.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Cronopio
Glorious Imperator
Dak
mentat
Balls McHoolihan
You mean coitus?
- Jan 22, 2012
- 759
- 9
- 18
Look what my Glock 17 squeezed out!
being a lefty, I'll have to switch out the slide stop lever to the extended. but I cant wait to shoot the little guy. He's so cute
Nice
Here's my Colt 1911. It's got a laser built into the hand grip Wish I could fire it more...the nearest range around here is about 30 minutes away. And it's kind of a shitty outdoor range. I'm in fuckin' Missouri too. You'd think there would be more around here...
Einherjar86
Active Member
Guns are fetishized in contemporary culture. Just saying.
As far as getting a gun "before the laws start changing," we don't need to be perpetuating the myth that the U.S. government is coming after our guns. On top of that, no one really has the right to own a gun anyway; all you have is the ability to own a gun, facilitated by a market society. The government isn't going to enact martial law and come marching down the street to knock on doors and coerce you into handing over your firearms.
Appealing to the Constitution is fallacious, since it specifies the right of a well-regulated militia to own guns; but I'm not a fan of constitutional purity anyway, so that doesn't do anything to defend my argument. I simply think that the rampant paranoia in our culture today is entirely media-fed and misguided.
As far as getting a gun "before the laws start changing," we don't need to be perpetuating the myth that the U.S. government is coming after our guns. On top of that, no one really has the right to own a gun anyway; all you have is the ability to own a gun, facilitated by a market society. The government isn't going to enact martial law and come marching down the street to knock on doors and coerce you into handing over your firearms.
Appealing to the Constitution is fallacious, since it specifies the right of a well-regulated militia to own guns; but I'm not a fan of constitutional purity anyway, so that doesn't do anything to defend my argument. I simply think that the rampant paranoia in our culture today is entirely media-fed and misguided.
Dak
mentat
Wouldn't disagree.
Yet. And that has nothing to do with getting something before the law changes. Because although there may be no confiscation in the future, that doesn't mean it can't be made illegal to purchase some types of guns in the future (IE, the 1994 AWB). Considering that the Obama administration has nothing to lose now (no re-election), and has said it is going to make a policy change, to say you want beat those changes is not "paranoia".
Come on Pat, I can't believe you are using that ridiculous argument. I won't appeal to the Constitution, but that argument re: militia is a non-starter.
Now if you want to state that everyone should be a part of the militia, I wouldn't disagree in general theory. Get rid of the standing army, everyone has an M-4 at home. Maybe a SAM unit at the local NG armory.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It is paranoia because, just as gun lobbyists already claim, those who want guns will get them, regardless of the law. Making any distinction between "good law-abiding people" and "evil law-breakers" is completely ideological and arbitrary. Those who appeal to the law whilst simultaneously admitting its flaws have no legitimate argument.
And all I'm saying with the "constitutional" argument is that people appeal to it as some infallible document (as you well know); but if you read the actual text, it's incredible how much we actively reinterpret it. The majority of conservatives and pro-gun lobbyists appeal to the Constitution as some infallible, unquestionable piece of legislation; but the truth is that one of the most blatant and obvious moments of constitutional reinterpretation occurred when the NRA re-envisioned the second amendment for its own financial purposes. All I'm trying to do is expose the hypocrisy of those who claim the high throne of "inalienable rights."
And all I'm saying with the "constitutional" argument is that people appeal to it as some infallible document (as you well know); but if you read the actual text, it's incredible how much we actively reinterpret it. The majority of conservatives and pro-gun lobbyists appeal to the Constitution as some infallible, unquestionable piece of legislation; but the truth is that one of the most blatant and obvious moments of constitutional reinterpretation occurred when the NRA re-envisioned the second amendment for its own financial purposes. All I'm trying to do is expose the hypocrisy of those who claim the high throne of "inalienable rights."
Dak
mentat
While I'll be the first to point out there's a difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum, this isn't what they are talking about and you know it.
I would argue that it's worse than actively interpreted, it's outright ignored except for the worst parts, excluding the 2nd Amendment. The 1st Amendment is already half dead.
When someone can show me where the emboldened idea came from other than the minds of people who write for publications like DailyKos, I'd love to see it. Some sort of NRA memo or statement or something from maybe the Reagan era, and some corresponding evidence of a generally accepted public opinion/SCOTUS decision before that time interpreting the 2nd Amendment in some less "libertarian" fashion. As it stands, I call bullshit.
That said, I have no use for the NRA. There are much better organizations, like Gun Owners of America. The NRA is a typical DC insider group. I've done some reading on how they work, and it's pure politics, not principled.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Based on some of your other statements, so do rights. So yes, rights are "alienable", particularly when you don't have guns. Isn't that the consistent historical point of gun control?
Edit:
Here's hypocrisy: You know what it takes to ban or restrict guns? Guns. When someone proposes a ban or restriction that applies equally to law enforcement and the military, I might take them seriously. Otherwise it's not gun control, it's ratio reduction. It's not because they don't like guns, it's because they don't like non-governmental gun ownership. Hypocrisy. Loads of it (lolz).
Eligos
Problem Yet to be Solved
Similar threads
