Originally posted by occrider
No I'm saying that "the people" referenced in the 2nd amendment bears the same connotation as "the people" in the preamble. The preamble does say "we the people" but it's not the case that EVERY American voted to ratify the constitution. Every American voted for a representative who then voted to ratify the constitution. Thus indirectly "the people" ratified the constitution. That's what the founding fathers meant when they said "we the people." Similarly, the second amendment is structured such that "the people" have a right to bear arms. And despite what we may think 300 years later, what it's really conveying is that militias have the right to bear arms and these militias are represented by "the people". Thus it's not conferring the right to every individual to bear arms for the purpose of self defense (that's not in the constitution); rather what it is saying is that the militias are constituted of "the people" and have a right to bear arms in defense of the state. So in other words, those elected by the people ratified the constitution, while those who are deemed worthy by the state and elect to be a part of the state militia have a right to bear arms. By simply looking at earlier revisions of the second amendment you can clearly figure out what the intent of the founding fathers were.
Btw I would love to continue this argument but I'm going on vacation to the Galapagos in about 10 hours so any rebuttal on my part will have to wait 2 weeks. But by all means i love talking constitution so fyi I'll def respond, it'll just come in two weeks time
Cheers.
They were saying that we should all have guns locked and loaded and ready to go, and we should form our own militias/units to keep things in check.
Obviously violence in this day and age is outmoded, but not when someone else has weapons and you have nothing.
Want to curb violence? Find a solution to the "drug problem" that actually works. Guns are very secondary.
Posted by occrider on Jul-12-2008 23:24:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
They were saying that we should all have guns locked and loaded and ready to go, and we should form our own militias/units to keep things in check.
Obviously violence in this day and age is outmoded, but not when someone else has weapons and you have nothing.
Want to curb violence? Find a solution to the "drug problem" that actually works. Guns are very secondary.
what?
Posted by DJ UD on Jul-13-2008 00:19:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
They were saying that we should all have guns locked and loaded and ready to go, and we should form our own militias/units to keep things in check.
Obviously violence in this day and age is outmoded, but not when someone else has weapons and you have nothing.
Want to curb violence? Find a solution to the "drug problem" that actually works. Guns are very secondary.
Drug's don't cause violence, drug control causes violence.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-13-2008 20:34:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ UD
Drug's don't cause violence, drug control causes violence.
Posted by The17sss on Jul-13-2008 21:28:
Posted by DJ UD on Jul-13-2008 21:36:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
That wasn't caused by drugs, that was caused by bad parenting, and a poor education system (which is poor because he's not the only one going around acting like that).
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-13-2008 23:02:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ UD
That wasn't caused by drugs, that was caused by bad parenting, and a poor education system (which is poor because he's not the only one going around acting like that).
uhhh, that may be but i'm sorry, drugs can do that despite the best parenting and the finest education.
Posted by Zild on Jul-14-2008 00:39:
Here that guy would be shot. It happened a few months ago about a mile down the street from my house. A guy got out of his car and charged another man's car and began attacking it with a bat. He was shot dead and the shooter allowed to go free on self defense.
Posted by DJ UD on Jul-14-2008 04:21:
quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Here that guy would be shot. It happened a few months ago about a mile down the street from my house. A guy got out of his car and charged another man's car and began attacking it with a bat. He was shot dead and the shooter allowed to go free on self defense.
If I had a gun I would defend my property with lethal force.
Posted by jerZ07002 on Jul-14-2008 10:03:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
uhhh, that may be but i'm sorry, drugs can do that despite the best parenting and the finest education.
you can't pin that behavior on any one factor. it is likely the cause is multiple factors. my personal opinion is the hip hop culture fosters this kind of behavior and is a substantial factor. although i agree drugs, poor education, and horrible parenting are all factors as well.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 01:28:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ UD
Drug's don't cause violence, drug control causes violence.
Absolutely right. Q's video does nothing but provide example of a salesman in the black market of drugs, where violence takes the place of corporate competition, in the absence of a regulated legal market. No education and little capital needed to excel here. So Q, what do you suggest the poor uneducated project kids do? Work at McDonald's for minimum wage? Are you really going to call them out for choosing fast money over shit money, especially under their circumstances? No, drugs don't cause violence, the black market commerce in drugs causes violence. And here are endless poor youths ready to fill in the void of dead/jailed black marketers. The Drug War will always fail.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 02:32:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
So Q, what do you suggest the poor uneducated project kids do?
stay off crack, cocaine, heroin, pills, meth, alcohol.
quote:
Are you really going to call them out for choosing fast money over shit money, especially under their circumstances?
yes. someone has to.
...and another thing, if you think any of this is isolated to "the projects" and "black kids" you're f**king stupid and slightly racist.
quote:
No, drugs don't cause violence, the black market commerce in drugs causes violence.
they both cause violence...and depression...and mental illness...disease...unwanted pregnancy...death blah blah blah...
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 02:41:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
stay off crack, cocaine, heroin, pills, meth, alcohol.
yes. someone has to.
they both cause violence...and depression...and mental illness...disease...death blah blah blah...
Apparently, you completely ignored the economics-side of illicit trade in narcotics. Being the avowed neo-conservative you are, supposedly a supporter of free markets, black markets thrive under hardline socialism. Shall I repeat that corporate competition turns to violent competition in an underground market? You can't outlaw the free market. If there is a demand, there will be suppliers, and those suppliers will compete for demand. It's not that hard to understand.
The same is true for guns. Outlawing guns will only open the door to the underground market trade of guns. You simply can not outlaw the free market. If people demand guns, there will always be a supplier to meet the demand. Haven't the right wingers (i.e. drug warriors) or the left wingers (i.e. gun outlaw supporters) learned anything from the prohibition of the 1920's....Apparently not...
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 02:45:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
...and another thing, if you think any of this is isolated to "the projects" and "black kids" you're f**king stupid and slightly racist.
LOL, coming from the guy who just posted a poor uneducated black man rambling about his narcotics sales experiences... It is no secret that the drug trade is dominated by poor minorities... And that is a scientific fact. I guess you havn't looked at who is jailed most often for drug offenses in the US. That's right...It's not whitey...Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 02:56:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Apparently, you completely ignored the economics-side of illicit trade in narcotics.
in favor for the future of our children, yes.
if you're so damned concern about the "economics" of it then why the f**k don't you advocate viable alternatives and community outreach in "the projects". don't answer that, i already know. it's because aside from being completely selfish you don't really give a damn about what happens in "the projects" as long as it doesn't effect you directly.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 03:00:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
That's right...It's not whitey...
i never said it was. i just provided an example. youre the one that thinks illicit drugs and violence associated with them only happens in the projects. that guy wasn't in the projects.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 03:08:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
in favor for the future of our children, yes.
if you're so damned concern about the "economics" of it then why the f**k don't you advocate viable alternatives and community outreach in "the projects". don't answer that, i already know. it's because aside from being completely selfish you don't really give a damn about what happens in "the projects" as long as it doesn't effect you directly.
Actually, you don't already know ANYTHING.
I advocate the Fair Tax, which would mean more money going to low income earners. I advocate school competition, so that only schools which perform would get students, and as a result, their money. I advocate the redirectly of money from narcotics law enforcement to drug education and rehabilitation projects. I care very much for the lower classes of his country, which is why I see myself as a libertarian socialist. One who believes in the free market, but also the responsibility of society to help those for whatever reason, are left behind by capitalism.
Your beloved president, has done what for the poor? Sent them off to die in a foreign land? Paid hundreds of billions of dollars for war, instead of domestic spending? No Child Left Behind? What a load of crap. And if you didn't know, I have been poor. Food stamps/handouts, roach-infested apartments, threats of being evicted, and utilities getting cut off b/c my mother couldn't pay. So please, spare me the "you don't care" bullshit.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 03:14:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i never said it was.
I never said you did. You called me a racist. I was then obligated to point out to you, that even though narcotics trade is prevelant in all classes of society, it is still the poor minorities who demographically dominate it.
quote:
i just provided an example. youre the one that thinks illicit drugs and violence associated with them only happens in the projects. that guy wasn't in the projects.
Classic straw man argument, BRAVO. I never said "only happens in the projects". I referred to "project kids" because you posted what? A black man who I assumed came out of the projects!! Clearly what I said was relevant to your video.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 03:17:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
So please, spare me the "you don't care" bullshit.
hell no, dude. you deserve it.
you just want a free market drug trade for your own selfish reasons and just HOPE it doesn't cause more violence...and depression...and mental illness...disease...unwanted pregnancy...death. and if it does f**k'em, right? you're dumb.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 03:18:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Clearly what I said was relevant to your video.
slightly relevant but nowhere near as shallow and myopic.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 04:04:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
hell no, dude. you deserve it.
you just want a free market drug trade for your own selfish reasons and just HOPE it doesn't cause more violence...and depression...and mental illness...disease...unwanted pregnancy...death. and if it does f**k'em, right? you're dumb.
slightly relevant but nowhere near as shallow and myopic.
I'm not falling for your ad hominems. Argue my points, or lose the argument.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 04:09:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I'm not falling for your ad hominems. Argue my points, or lose the argument.
you've already lost. you can't prove to me or anybody else legalizing the drug trade won't cause more harm than good to black kids in the projects or any kid from anywhere yet you still want it and defend it.
it's selfish, myopic, shallow and stupid. there, pm a mod.
Posted by Krypton on Jul-15-2008 04:20:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
you've already lost. you can't prove to me or anybody else legalizing the drug trade won't cause more harm than good to black kids in the projects or any kid from anywhere yet you still want it and defend it.
it's selfish, myopic, shallow and stupid. there, pm a mod.
*sigh* I really hate spoon feeding people, but here goes (7 points for you to address specifically)...
1. Violence takes the place of corporate competition, in the absence of a regulated legal market.
2. No education and little capital needed to excel here [in the drug trade].
3. Black markets thrive under hardline socialism [outlaw of a free market].
4. Corporate competition turns to violent competition in an underground market.
5. You can't outlaw the free market. [RESTATED]You simply can not outlaw the free market.
6. If there is a demand, there will be suppliers, and those suppliers will compete for demand.
7. Haven't the right wingers (i.e. drug warriors) or the left wingers (i.e. gun outlaw supporters) learned anything from the prohibition of the 1920's?
-------------------------------------
Now instead of pulling every insulting word out of the dictionary, how about specifically addressing my points, which I have just repeated for the SECOND/THIRD time. I won't PM any mod, because unlike latinlover or CHRles, you try to debate, although crudely.
Posted by Q5echo on Jul-15-2008 05:23:
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
1. Violence takes the place of corporate competition,
to an extent. so? it doesn't eliminate violence and it creates more competition.
and if you agree that drugs themselves can cause violence to an extent, then you must conceed that more drugs would cause equally more violence.
quote:
in the absence of a regulated legal market.
so now you want to regulate it? legally, ok. how? and how would that not contradict and exacerbate further your fundamental premise?
quote:
2. No education and little capital needed to excel here [in the drug trade].
again, a causation but you still can't explain to me how that would stop competition among those same people with "little or no education" if you believe that competition is one of the fundamental causes of violence among people with little or no education.
responsible communities, black, white, or brown, will never welcome competition, legal or otherwise, the drug trade. how do you reconcile your position with them? force them?
quote:
3. Black markets thrive under hardline socialism [outlaw of a free market].
who cares.
quote:
4. Corporate competition turns to violent competition in an underground market.
so you want illicit drugs to be exclusively in the corporate domain? how does that eliminate black markets? explain yourself better.
corprate competion is also partly responsible for underage drunk driving and the misery associated with it. corporate competion is also largely responsible for underage smoking as well. <---there is a point here and i hope you are sharp enough to get it
quote:
5. You can't outlaw the free market. [RESTATED]You simply can not outlaw the free market.
you can't explain to me how decriminalizing the drug trade will eliminate violence, depression, mental illness, disease, unwanted pregnancy and death. [RESTATED] you simply can't explain to me how decriminalizing the drug trade will eliminate violence, depression, mental illness, disease, unwanted pregnancy and death.
quote:
6. If there is a demand, there will be suppliers, and those suppliers will compete for demand.
you want to increase supply knowing full well that it will only increase demand. how does that eliminate competition? and how does that limit the harm drugs do? it's because you don't care about the harm or really care about whom exactly will be doing the competing
quote:
7. Haven't the right wingers (i.e. drug warriors) or the left wingers (i.e. gun outlaw supporters) learned anything from the prohibition of the 1920's?
thats not a point.
quote:
Now instead of pulling every insulting word out of the dictionary, how about specifically addressing my points, which I have just repeated for the SECOND/THIRD time.
i'll say it again b/c you deserve it. your position is selfish, shallow, myopic and stupid.
Posted by Fibonacci on Jul-15-2008 05:37:
I'm kind of mixed about this. As much as I don't want guns in my neighborhoods, I don't really trust anyone else to protect my family when push comes to shove... Disallowing guns tends to be a slippery slope. Although I don't really think I need an AK-47 or israeli sub-machine guns to do so. Maybe I'll think otherwise when I have a family, I think a louisville slugger might suffice to protect myself, my dog, and my laptop
