I hope it wins the Academy Award for best documentary as well; it’s definitely one of Moore’s best.

Because I'm sure the framer's envisioned the likes of Larry Flynt. :rolleyes:

Your "zinger" was not that of referring to me as a right, but making the assertion that I was in fact, "ragging on the troops by saying it may be necessary to trade bullets with them one day?" I find that highly offensive. I'm only stating what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is.

Words mean things....the Constitution is not a "living breathing document" it IS THE MOST finely crafted document of the modern age. And as far as the evolution of society is concerned, that's why we, as the public, are allowed to Amend it.

The last time I checked, Hustler never killed anyone.

You just proved my point. If Larry Flynt was provoking violence through his speach, he would be held accountable and his speach would not be protected. There are gray areas. If restrictions can be put on certain kinds of speach, then why not apply the same judicious restraint on the 2nd ammendment?

You're right, shouldn't have thrown that in there. It cheapened my argument and I apologize.


Which is it? A permanent, finely-crafted, unevolving document or a living, breathing one that must be reinterpreted from time to time? Before you answer, keep in mind that there is a large segment of society who would not look too kindly on once again being considered three-fifths of a person.


-Doc

Thanks.


Sorry, guess I wasn't clear enough. It's a "permanent, finely-crafted, un-evolving document." Like I said, words mean things and by that I mean they're not open to the interpretations/emotions of an individual.

Edit: That's why I mentioned the ability to Amend it when needed.

Three-fifths of a person? :scratch2:

You're right...we should ban 5-gallon buckets and hammers and steak knives... anything that's every killed a human being should be banned. Cars!! We gotta ban cars!!!11!!1!1!

Ammending it means that it IS EVOLVING and CAN BE REINTERPRUTED to fit the times. And don't say that ammendments can't UNDO previous Ammendments. It was done before with the 21st undoing the 18th. So why would it then be so unconstitutional to undo the 2nd?


Yes... also known as <b> black people </b> according to the constitution.

-Doc

5 Gallon buckets, hammers, steak knives and cars all have primary uses OTHER than <i>killing people</i>. If you "use as indicated", they are useful tools.

A gun's intended use is to kill.





-Doc

They why hasn't it been done? :scratch2:

I'm talking about the public having a say in our Gov't, not judges "interpreting" specific Amendments.

SO, you're saying that the sole purpose of a firearm is "killing people"?

Guns are used for hunting, thus feeding one's family.

What happens when a firearm is used when one commits suicide?

Sorry, responded before your edit.

Because of the gun lobby. My real beef with this argument is that it's not about the constitution or the right to bear arms or the right to defend from tyranny. The reason they're legal is because some people like guns. Pure and simple. Some people like guns. Well, people like coke and heroin, too, and yet guns kill more than both combined in this country each year.

Combine the populations of Britain, Austrailia, Germany and Italy and you've got a population roughly the size of the US, and they have drastically lower gun-related deaths each year. Take away the guns, you lower the stats on gun-related deaths. And what is the counter to this argument? "Hunting is a proud tradition" and "To protect ourselves from the big bad government?" It's a joke and it's no wonder that Europeans stare across the pond and scratch their heads.


-Doc

i agree also. Moore is one hell of a good filmmaker. Sicko was great. It's sad that his movies never really end up doing anything in regards to change the system and the policies of the system but they are still powerful examinations of what is wrong with this country.

No worries, mate. It's a hot-button debate. Procedure tends to get muddled on forums, especially when you hit the "post reply" button, and then suddenly think, "And ANOTHER THING...!" Heh, I've been doing it all day.


-Doc

That's just it...it's not a joke. THAT'S ALL the 2nd Amendment pertains to. Nothing more.

And I'm sorry, but that's outdated and ridiculous.


-Doc

It's neither. That's why it was written and it still pertains today. It will always pertain..."power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I have never heard of a handgun being used for hunting. So, yes, it's safe to say the sole utility for a handgun is as a device for killing or critically hurting people.

And, if the mass possession of firearms is to protect citizens from an autocratic, overreaching government, why are gun owners sitting on their hands right now? Once again, it comes down to pure self-interest. As long as it isn't affecting you personally, as with wiretapping or rendition of Muslims, who cares? But if it were to entail circumscribing your hunting privileges, watch out mama, there will be an uprising.

You're the one who brought up irrelevance like Larry Flynt.

I reference Larry Flynt relative to the 1st Amendment compared to the argument of "oh if our forefathers only knew about AR-15s!!" relative to the 2nd Amendment. As if the framers full on expected Hustler magazine but had no clue of the Mac-10.

It's always boggled my mind that the 1st Amend. is not open to interpretation, while our framers were apparently smoking crack while composing the 2nd Amendment. "They're brilliant!! They're geniuses!! Oh...all but that pesky 2nd Amendment, they don't know that they're talking about."

I know guys who'll hunt with a scoped .44 mag. That and they're always handy in case you come upon a Grizzly.

How is the 1st Amendment not open to interpretation?

that's what they meant by bear arms. ;)

Are you even reading my previous posts? The 1st Ammendment IS open to interprutation and has been reinterpruted and refined many MANY times. leaking classified information is a federal crime and not protected speach. Yelling "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded setting that would cause panic is not protected. Calling in threats, saying explicit things to minors - all of these things are NOT protected under free speach, and the ALL were labeled such in court decisions that reinterpruted the First Ammendment.

(By the by, I noticed that when I mentioned the Three-Fifths clause, which basically PROVED beyond question that there were outdated flaws in the constitution and removed all doubt that it IS a living, breathing document, the point was completely ignored....)


Lot of power in a handgun...


-Doc