All this Second Amendment "right to bear arms" is dependent on the interpretation of the US constitution which hasn't always been interpreted in the way it is today. From the Wikipedia article:
"In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
Those that that think this is some of sacred right are mistaken.
Excellent point! Legal documents are always up for discussion, and defined by the eyes that read them. We defined them differently today than we did a hundred years ago. It wasn't that long ago that the Danish King was actively involved in politics until the constitution was read in a way that made it impossible. Times change, and so does the definitions of old documents.
Also, the constitution is
not a divine text. It was written by colonial separatists in a time immediately following a war of independence in the 18th century. It's OK to point out that it is mostly a brilliant, timeless piece of legislation, but also a product of its time, and somewhat outdated. One of the common beliefs in the 18th century was that California was an island, and that pains should be healed through blood-letting.
On to the pettiness.
Clarification time. Maybe I am too big of an idiot to understand what you're saying, but here's where my point is coming from. This is what you wrote.
The only post on this stupid thread worth reading.
I interpreted this as you stating that all of us were wrong, except for the one that you just quoted. Fair enough. Here's what I wrote in response:
You literally just "threw shit" at everyone in this thread except for Pleiades.
Was that a bit harsh? Sure. I was objecting to the fact that I felt like we were having a (somewhat) perfectly fine and nuanced discussion about the issues and good sides of the 2nd amendment. It also seemed a bit odd for you to suddenly chime in just to state that we were all completely wrong while refusing to post your own opinions on the subject. Then here's where you go into this:
I spoke about the thread and the discussion and decided that it was not a discussion. And as far as I can see, I'm not the person singling people out, either. I think I tried perfectly well the first time, and I am not inclined to feel sorry for myself because I'm not giving an opinion you had hoped for.
Here you're essentially accusing me of picking on you for having an opinion that you haven't stated. You then wrote this:
Learn to grasp the simple concept that perhaps my statement was aimed at the nature of the discussion, but of course you'd head straight for the only scenario in-which I am the big troll baddie that is talking shit about everyone. It is in-fact not the case, and you are also clutching a straws. It also seems to me that people complain that I am talking about them specifically when I did not mention a single name and rather ironically get singled out for apparently picking on people. You couldn't make this stuff up. You also may think I'm alone in my opinion, but I'm one of a few people that thinks this thread is a shit-throwing festival.
Oh dear. I said it again....
1) I never called your intellect into the matter. You did here by writing that I should "learn to grasp the simple concept that perhaps my statement was aimed at the nature of the discussion".
2) I never called you a "big troll baddie". What I wrote was that you "threw shit" at everyone in this thread by negating the entire thread. There's a difference.
3) Who threw shit and at what point? It was a discussion of the second amendment before you essentially derailed the thread with your posts.
No words have been placed in your mouth, and you clearly didn't read the other posts on the page. I'll post here because people keep quoting my 'stupid thread' post in an attempt to call me out as a troll, so I defend what I said. I'll post here without your permission but clearly with your interruption.
I'm done with repeating myself to people that won't listen.
Who called you a troll? That's a prime example of you putting words into the keyboard-mouths of the people writing on this thread. Your aggression and condescension is creating unnecessary hostility and brings noise to an important discussion.
