So, it's looking like mass murder is inevitable because of "rights".

[sibelian]

I'm unimpressed.

[Zalatix]

1. Were the bombs that guy had his his apartment legal?

[loli phabay]

2. yeah better to have no rights i suppose.

[Scootaloo]

3. Explain to me

What exactly is it that makes the 2nd amendment so absolutely, knuckle-bitingly important? Don't give me "It's a right," that's a circular argument. Why is this thing imperative to our existence? That is, why is it a right? Why must this be sacrosanct...

And why must it be sacrosanct-except-when-it-isn't-because-otherwise-gun-nuts-would-look-crazier? A right is a right, right? if I want to be armed, does it really matter if it's a gun, a boomerang, or a grenade belt? It's my right to be armed, and the constitution makes no exceptions for form of weaponry. And if it's a right, it's a right! I don't need a license to say shit I want to say, I don't need a buy-in to not testify against myself, why do I need a lisense for my weapons, hmmm? for that matter, I don't have to shell out any money for my right to vote, or my right to worship (if i chose to worship, that is) - why should I have to pay for my weapons? They should be supllied, as my due. Pointy stick, gun, nuclear warhead, whatever the treasury says worksm but it's my right, why am I being told I have to go to a third party for my right?

So, yeah. explain to me why it needs to be a right, and then if it is a right and NEEDS to be a right, why that right is so blatantly infringed upon.

[loli phabay]

4. simply put its there in the constitution as a right same as lots of other stuff

if you want to get rid of that right fine, but what happens when other rights are stripped as well, you may not like certain rights but i think you would be better trying to add them than taking any away. for me i think more rights are better and even the ones i dont like are important to keep.

[SoDesuKa]

5. Natural Rights vs. Constitutional Rights

The Scalia opinion in Heller is legitimate in the sense that his reasoning isn't entirely off the wall. He says the Court is not in the business of re-defining what the Amendments mean, and he interprets the Second Amendment fairly literally, i.e., the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Consititution. Want a different interpretation to prevail? Replace one or two Justices on the Supreme Court.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Where I live, gun ownership is so restricted that you need really special permission to have a gun even in your house. Mayor Bloomberg isn't especially out of line in his attitudes either. The next Mayor will probably enforce the Sullivan Law just as enthusiastically. Frankly, I support the Sullivan Law because the last thing we need in crowded New York is more armed criminals. And stop-and-frisk is probably the reason there aren't more gun crimes here.
[center]


You Ain't Bringin' a Gun in Here[/center]

[Reasonable_Argument]

6. Already have in another thread

On both counts

[SoDesuKa]

7. Do Driver Licenses Make Traffic Accidents Inevitable?

There are a lot of people who, quite simply, should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car - they're too irresponsible. The problem is identifying these individuals before they cause an accident.

[DrDan]

8. no - because of "the right" - 2A trumps all