yequalsx

7 ms·

1.
by yequalsx 8y ago
That is not my argument at all. I have an opinion on what the 2nd amendment ought to mean. I advocate that others share my position. I've acknowledged numerous times that others don't share my opinion and I've suggested th
2.
by yequalsx 8y ago
The reading of ehmu's comments doesn't make it clear that he/she probably agrees with your position on the second amendment? It's seems obvious to me. If it's easy to get confused with the intent of ehmu's tw
3.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I have not read the Heller decision in its entirety. I do know that there are Supreme Court rulings that Heller contradicts. I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I do know that views on how the Const
4.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I wanted to click that link you have to see where it went. But I know better! It's hard sometimes to not tempt fate.
5.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Hence my use of, "I guess...". I didn't know what exactly you were referring to with the phrase in question. However, the remainder of what I wrote remains on point and valid as that had to do with your selective reading of
6.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I doubt that you are an expert on all topics you post about. I'm actually well educated. So now I am claiming this. Mostly in mathematics, physics, logic, and history. I'm not an expert in any area outside of mathematics. Howeve
7.
by yequalsx 8y ago
The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes t
8.
by yequalsx 8y ago
You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views ch
9.
by yequalsx 8y ago
A person is law abiding until they aren’t. It’s about keeping people from having ready access to so much lethality when that person decides to become a bad actor. Banning guns would lower the likelihood of a bad actor having as much letha
10.
by yequalsx 8y ago
This sounds reasonable. For a variety of reasons I think the U.S. constitution is badly in need of being updated.
11.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices said there was no such right enshrined in the 2nd amendment. Thus there are people who are learned in the law who disagree with your position. Is it really hard for you to imagine that
12.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I don’t understand your sarcasm. I agreed with you that the crime rate has not gone up due to an increase in gun ownership. But guns in their current form certainly increase the lethality of those with bad intent. This isn’t deniable. My
13.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it. The second amendment means to me something differe
14.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Adding guns probably doesn’t increase crime rate. It does the mass murder rate. It is precisely gun crime that I abhor. Thus I'm opposed to their availability.
15.
by yequalsx 8y ago
My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization u
16.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.
17.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.
18.
by yequalsx 8y ago
People do illegal things. This isn’t surprising nor an argument against making something illegal. If it could be shown that banning guns and making it illegal to sell guns didn’t decrease the frequency of their usage to commit crimes then
19.
by yequalsx 8y ago
According to the quote I have of the Wikipedia article there are Supreme Court cases that say it does limit the type of arms.
20.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Well if the first amendment were stated differently than what it is then people would interpret it differently. I fail to see your point on that. There is much that the writers of the constitution didn’t foresee. I think it’s ridiculous,
21.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I’m not a lawyer, never claimed to be an expert. Heller is a recent ruling. Previous rulings contradict Heller in some aspects. See, the way the Cinstituion is interpreted over time changes. It’s not like we are bound by a ruling for al
22.
by yequalsx 8y ago
The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendme
23.
by yequalsx 8y ago
And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wik
24.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have becom
25.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.
26.
by yequalsx 8y ago
What's interesting is that rural America was in favor of increased gun control in the 1960s when blacks started to assert their right to own guns. Ultimately peoples' attitudes can be swayed and changed and it isn't really h
27.
by yequalsx 8y ago
The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know
28.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed. The 2nd Amendment is o
29.
by yequalsx 8y ago
Similar to how other bans get carried out. Make it illegal and send those who violate the law to jail.
30.
by yequalsx 8y ago
I'm not a gun owner. Indeed I'm very much opposed to people being able to own guns and hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S. I do understand your perspective and why this is upsetting to you. For me I see it as a step

More ›