- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It was quite interesting to watch this. I don't agree with the outcome and believe that the outcome is actually a very strong indicator of WHY we NEED the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution and that it hasn't outlived its usefulness. Note that this was done in New York, a place that notoriously is against the right to bear arms and limits it as much as possible so the result wasn't really all that surprising. Indeed I already expected such a result before 5 minutes of the video was even watched by me.
I would also like to note that this was an excellent example of what a debate SHOULD be like. You'll note that they didn't get bogged down in semantics like so often happens here at DP.
It was quite interesting to watch this. I don't agree with the outcome and believe that the outcome is actually a very strong indicator of WHY we NEED the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution and that it hasn't outlived its usefulness. Note that this was done in New York, a place that notoriously is against the right to bear arms and limits it as much as possible so the result wasn't really all that surprising. Indeed I already expected such a result before 5 minutes of the video was even watched by me.
I would also like to note that this was an excellent example of what a debate SHOULD be like. You'll note that they didn't get bogged down in semantics like so often happens here at DP.
The entire debate was semantical from a political perspective. In the beginning they even acknowledge that, they state that repealing the 2nd amendment is a political impossibility an that the SCOTUS has affirmed the individual right to bear arms. So why does it matter if the 2nd amendment has or hasnt outlived its usefulness?
It's an intellectual debate. That is the only reason they had it.
They could have argued whether a unicorn could beat a jackalope in a fight and that would have been a better use of brain power
They could have argued whether a unicorn could beat a jackalope in a fight and that would have been a better use of brain power
And if they had held it in Texas, it'd be just as biased in the opposite direction. Good luck finding any location where opinion is split right down the middle.Note that this was done in New York, a place that notoriously is against the right to bear arms....
The debate wasn't about repealing the 2nd Amendment, or repealing the right to bear arms. They state that in the first minute or two of the debate.The anti-gunners will never give up repealing the 2nd Amendment. That's why we can't let our guard down.
The anti-gunners will never give up repealing the 2nd Amendment. That's why we can't let our guard down.
That's a stupid debate. The right to own a gun is an extension of the right to property, the right to self defense, and the right to self governance(aka choosing governance). The real question is does the reach of the second amendment need to be expanded, not if it has outlived its usefulness.
Its ironic that Dershowitz cites the correct founders historical intent (ie the right of citizens to keep and bear military grade firearms to secure liberty of the states over an oppressive federal government) but then completely ignores historical reality. The militia is all of us. The country was not won by an 'organized' militia in the vein he promotes. The country was won by ordinary citizens taking up arms and stepping forward in times of need. Even after the war, the citizens didnt form, drill, march, and take orders. They lived, they farmed, they owned businesses...all as part of the 'militia'.
And the Constitution (and especially not the 2nd amendment) will NEVER outlive its usefulness. The only people promoting such foolishness would be people that want to see the Constitution and original intent overrun.
The circumstances that prevailed when the 2nd amendment was drafted have not existed for centuries. Not only is it no longer remotely relevent its now a lethal liability for modern American society as the annual death toll dramatically demonstrates.
It is indeed ironic that every year now in the US over seven times more people are killed per annum as a consequence of this obsolete anachronism than were killed in the entire American Revolution 1775-1783
America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
Dude, get serious. A unicorn is magical. A jackalope wouldn't stand a chance.
Jackalopes are the Chuck Norris of the animal kingdom...
really? how many Chuck Norris heads do you see on the walls of bar rooms or gun shops?
Those are their discarded heads. They keep growing new ones.
The circumstances that prevailed when the 2nd amendment was drafted have not existed for centuries. Not only is it no longer remotely relevent its now a lethal liability for modern American society as the annual death toll dramatically demonstrates.
It is indeed ironic that every year now in the US over seven times more people are killed per annum as a consequence of this obsolete anachronism than were killed in the entire American Revolution 1775-1783
America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
The circumstances that prevailed when the 2nd amendment was drafted have not existed for centuries. Not only is it no longer remotely relevent its now a lethal liability for modern American society as the annual death toll dramatically demonstrates.
It is indeed ironic that every year now in the US over seven times more people are killed per annum as a consequence of this obsolete anachronism than were killed in the entire American Revolution 1775-1783
America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?