Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

142 comments

  • BigDannyH - January 12, 2013 4:48 a.m.

    From reading these messages, I kind of feel the NRA have already won. Nobody seems to be even entertaining the idea that perhaps your society would be a little healthier without everyone having access to guns. I'm not sure why a ban on guns is such a no-go area? It's such a no-go area that even these baby steps of banning automatic weapons seem to be DOA. Why do the "hunters" get so much protection too? "Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic, so banning them would ruin hunting". So fucking what! I'm sorry if your brutal, archaic hobby is made a little more difficult but we're trying to protect society! If they made a videogame controller that made it much easier to win at Fifa but, if a nutcase got hold of it, 10s of people could be murdered then, you know what, ban that bloody controller. I'll just have to get better at Fifa.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    I invite you to understand reality. You don't get why a ban on guns is a no-go? Read the Constitution. And before you come out with that "well regulated militia" line, try reading Heller vs. DC. Hint: the 2nd Amendment doesn't require that you be a member of a "militia," as we understand the term today, to own a weapon. You don't get why hunters get protection? Because the 2nd Amendment wasn't about hunting. It wasn't at the Republic's founding and it is not now.
  • Aardvarkk - January 12, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    That was passed when they still had muskets, so you are welcome to all the muskets you want.
  • Bloodstorm - January 12, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    The second amendment is a safeguard against Government itself. The purpose was that the founding fathers knew Government only ever corrupts, and expands. A populace without a means to guard itself from Government corruptness and tyranny is a populace without any rights to itself. It is meant to keep the Government in control of the people, and not the people in control of the Government. The only thing that has changed since the 2nd Amendment was conceived is the peoples attitude towards Government. People have grown comfortably naive, and will their rights away to a rapidly expanding Government for a false sense of security, as if Big Brother is going to comfort them and make everything better, but not realizing that Government is the true monster behind the ever crumbling state of this country.
  • Asmodean - January 12, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    TOTAL BS. The Second Amendment only exists so that the Government of the time could raise and an army from the populace in the form of a militia. It is not a check on government tyranny or corruption it would bloody well say so if it was. -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.- Second Amendment Nothing there about security against tyranny or corruption so stop touting BS about Big Brother or another conspiracy delusion.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    Nothing about protection from tyranny / speaking truth to power in the first amendment either. Try reading some history, sucker.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    Before you go touting your jargon, how about you go read some of Jefferson's writings? We're in 3rd grade and need things spelled out for us, it was obvious of what was inferred. Here's just a simple quote: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Dr. Benjamin Rush - Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800 Go read some Jefferson, and come back to us when your ready to be civil about this, or do I need to spell that out for you as well?
  • Asmodean - January 14, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    I don't really care what Jefferson wrote. Were talking about what's in the constitution itself, not the musings of one of its composers after the fact. I am being very civil on this issue. But when peoples start spouting conspiracy idiocy as justification for having a gun and/or outright lying about the intent of parts of the constitution, that when civility has make way for truth. Even if it hurts feeling.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    So you won't look into the thought processes and letters of some of the instrumental figures in the development of the constitution and our government? You my friend, are being close-minded. Not to say that in an offensive way, but you are truly being so. It appears that your not willing to do research on the matter or listen to the influential persons on the matter. So who will you listen to? If your not willing to listen to those that helped formed our body of government today, then I have no words to say to you pass this. I will gladly take their words on the matter than yours.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    past*
  • Asmodean - January 14, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    By all means do, I don't think there is much I could say to change your mind. However take the following into account, Jefferson has been dead for almost 200 years, it's not close minded to disregard or diminish his writing on the constitution. Seeing as he could never envision a time of Automatic firearms, tanks, jets or the Atom Bomb, it is perfectly reasonable to disregard him. His writings are of his times not ours and should not be used as a cudgel to justify our own opinions as if his words and those other founders are divine mandate. The founding fathers (and Mothers) were men plain and simple, each flawed and human not demigods who's wisdom transcends time and space. To use their words as justification for limiting progress and change when it' is staring us in the face is disingenuous to who they were. To transpose the view of 18th century thinkers to 21th century issue is likewise disingenuous (no mater how revered the writer). I might respect and enjoy the writings of say Aristotle, but I'm not going to use his words as justification of my opinions.
  • BigDannyH - January 14, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    Too true. Hiding behind technicalities written hundreds of years ago that are clearly of another time and place is a silly argument. Surely the founding fathers were all about change for the good of society? With the number of murders and injuries caused by guns each year the stats imply the US are up there with war torn countries. It's crazy. We hear that there's a gun for every American, but do all of you own a gun (I.e. one in every house)? I really can't believe you all do but I only know a few of you guys and I've never thought to ask before.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    E=MC2 was made years upon years ago, but guess what? It's still relevant (for those who get that lol.). Just because it was in the past doesn't mean it doesn't work, and before you say that this shooting is proof of it not working, then you need to really see why this man did what he did instead of blame random things. A weapon is a tool to an end, what the tools purpose is of little concern to it's end (that they're dead). In the end a person died because of that tool, which this time was a gun, but next time could be a car. So who's fault was it? The guns who's purposes are defense, intimidation, and killing? Or the guy who chose to kill with the gun instead of using it's other purposes? Same with a guy who used a car to kill, most people would use it for driving to a location, but this guy used it to kill. Is it the cars fault? No to both, its the persons fault of how they use the tool. So how about we focus on whats making people choose to kill, instead of what they killed with. So you guys wouldn't be bummed out if for some reason that IF guns were banned, that they were allowed once again in a few years? Because times have changed in those years right? Whats even sillier is the "We live only in the now, and we shouldn't look to the past for guidance, because that would just be silly." argument. Those who do not look to the past are doomed to repeat past mistakes my friend. To try and take away guns for everybody (general statement) is the equivalent of class punishment for a small group that cannot handle them in third grade. It's the equivalent of prejudice to Middle Easterner's because a small group did something terrible at 911.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    When you begin to disregard the foundation of your government and inner workings of your rights and laws to abide by, you begin to change the very nature of what their goal was. America's forefathers may have been dead for hundreds of years and they could not have foreseen the plights of today's world, I do definitely agree, but their goal was to preserve our basic rights as shown within their writings. When you throw caution to the wind to the fundamental properties of this nation and what makes it different than the one's they rejected and sought refuge from, you become a nation that steers from it's original credence. Which of course can be good at times, but do you disagree with their fundamental idea's? Because I sure as heck don't. You can't enforce freedom when you willingly sign away your rights. You may call it progress, but many, such as I, believe it's a step backwards and down a trail eventually leading to the dissipation of this nations goals. You may believe that it's perfectly fine to disregard anything in the past since it no longer applies in your view, but those who do not look to the past are doomed to repeat it. Besides, there are much more pressing issues to push forward such as our standard of living, education, mental and physical wellness, and things of such that actually reduce crime. It's easy to see democracy without the second amendment, but lets propose amendment 15 was thrown away. Can you see it now? It's easy to see how things will be fine all the while your rights are stripped away one at a time, but over time you have little of what you had. Feeling safe means nothing when your freedom is taken away from you. You live relying on others to keep you safe, but what happens when they are not there to protect you? You may say, "A taser, a baseball bat, etc...", but it doesn't really matter since without guns; number of people, strength, weight, gender, all of these would then matter to the safety of your home.
  • BigDannyH - January 14, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    Sorry, I should explain that I'm not American more when I comment. I can't understand your gun laws as I've never been exposed to them. All I can say is that, from a UK perspective, they're almost unbelievable and very scary. I can tell you that I have never once felt that my freedom has been questioned. I've never once felt that my liberty has been in danger. I also don't know why tighter gun control is considered such a denial of liberty while lots of other laws seem far mor Draconian in the States. Buying alcohol is restricted to over 21s and heavily enforced. In the UK we were all sneaking in to pubs and trying our luck at 16-17 and mostly getting away with it. I also guarantee, having known a few, that French, Italian, Spanish and German youngsters live a pretty free and fun life. I bet owning a gun is pretty far down their list of priorities.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    I think that's in part due to different culture. I'm not trying to question your age here, but I bet when the ban and regulations was put into place, there were plenty of children under (fill in the blank age) and kids that were not even born that didn't even notice the fact until they were older, then probably didn't even care enough. (tell me if I'm wrong, I'm curious) It's one of those things that when you understand the fact that something so fundamental in your rights can be taken from you (in America at least) on the whim of a few, that is what is scary. It's super easy for your rights to be stripped from you, especially at emotional highs during tragic events, then it's very difficult to tell if it has been effective for centuries and especially at wartime or national emergencies, let alone even felt as they are slowly stripped. With the alcohol restriction of age, I really don't see much difference in it since they're both technically being restricted. I don't agree with it being so high, but it's not being threatened at this emotional high from this tragedy here as of late.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 15, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    E=mc^2 is a scientific formula, not a man's oponions. And did you also know that Jefferson, while being praised for the Louisiana Purchase, orignially did not want to go through with it? He thought that since it wasn't specifically written in the Constitution, the president did not have the power to make such a decision, and he felt guilty about it. One of the largest gains of land in American history.
  • ParagonT - January 15, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    E=mc2 is a formula, as in how you don't necessarily need to change something for it to work. Just like how you do not need to change laws when they still work. But the problem is that people think that the formula for a "safer country" is broken, when in fact they are blaming the formula instead of taking responsibility for humans actions of how they handle it. Guns are just a tool to an end, whether it be defense, intimidation, or killing, just like all other items in this world have their purposes which include killing. It's the humans fault for using it to whatever end they choose, which it's killing this time.
  • matthewkaster - January 12, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    See, the funny thing about that is that we're conveniently overlooking the Constitutional requirement forbidding a standing army. THAT was the purpose of the Second Amendment. We're supposed to have a Navy. Everything else is not, if we're speaking solely from the Constitution, allowed to remain when not needed during a time of war. Therefore, an army would need to be raised quickly and the Second Amendment would help serve that purpose. Further, the idea of some Red Dawn-esque civilian populace rising up to ward off government tyranny in an era where we spend more on defense and military tech than the next 20 countries combined is naïve at best and just plain wrong at worst. With a 3 million strong military armed to the teeth with advanced vehicles, bombs, and weaponry, any sort of revolt or governmental overthrow by the people would be quelled and drowned in pools of the blood of American citizens. There is no purpose whatsoever to giving a gun to every man, woman, and child, especially to combat the government's corruption. Remove the Hollywood-glory goggles.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Fortunately, many of the elite charged with protecting our country do. You know, the guys who have a little more of an idea how to fight than some idiot who watched Red Dawn. If you know any retired SF (their job is to foment civilian insurgencies), or hell, any retired vets, talk to them. You will be surprised what you hear from most.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    Read Jefferson, I'm afraid your may not know more than you think you do.
  • opzero - January 13, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    The first amendment was made when they had shouting in town halls quail pens and parchment paper in mind before there was the internet , tv, radio , video games , movies , cable, mp3, ........
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    So was the formula E=MC2. Your point?
  • BigDannyH - January 14, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    The thing is, when scientific theories are proved incorrect, they change them.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    But it isn't incorrect, it's just that the person doing the calculations and equating thinks that the formula is flawed instead of blaming themselves.

Showing 61-80 of 142 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.