The Second Amendment is past its Use-By date

[ZiprHead]

Since you equate the two, and you want to restrict one, your desire to restrict gun rights represents a much deeper seated fear of sexual activity.

Three silly images obviously not made by gun rights advocates

That doesn't answer the question.

It is those in favor of firearm restrictions that compare guns to sex. So, what are the Freudian implications of them wanting to restrict something they compare to sex?

Pro-control people don't eqaute it to sex. They equate it to carnage. Rather, we see those who are against control treating it as if it were orgasm-inducing, hence, we see THEM treating guns like sex. Hence the jokes.

ZiprHead did indeed equate it to sex, and he is not the only Gun Control Lobbyist to do so. It is not the Gun Rights Advocates who equate it to sex, it is the Gun Control Lobbyists who fetishise it.

The 7 Most Sexiest Gun Ads

I don't spend hours every week rubbing up and down with oil my steel penis replacements that ejac, oops, eject hot lead from the tip.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sex is used to sell everything. You fail to prove that your particular fetishizing of guns is not just you having a massive Freudian complex.

 

[ImGod]

Wierd thread.

It's almost like guns are to liberals as abortion is to conservatives. It shuts down their rational thought. It's also why both spend so much effort to undermine a totally different right using an eerily similar playbook of emotion, harassment, constantly attempting to regulate from different angles, etc.

Obama crying yesterday could have just as well been a conservative holding up a picture of a fetus. Props for political gain. Even mentioned voting for the right candidate. Neither can get their way but they won't stop trying.

It's a good thing rights aren't up to popular vote.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sex is used to sell everything. You fail to prove that your particular fetishizing of guns is not just you having a massive Freudian complex.

Here's another one. Scroll down to "Gun Enthusiasts & Ammo ~ Woodsterman Style"

Maybe if sex is used to sell everything, I'm using sex to sell gun control. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[bilby]

Wierd thread.

It's almost like guns are to liberals as abortion is to conservatives. It shuts down their rational thought. It's also why both spend so much effort to undermine them using an eerily similar playbook of emotion, harassment, constantly attempting to regulate from different angles, etc.

Obama crying yesterday could have just as well been a conservative holding up a picture of a fetus. Neither can get their way but they won't stop trying.

It's a good thing rights aren't up to popular vote.

Of course rights are up to popular vote.

That's how the 18th Amendment was repealed; how the 13th was adopted; and it's how any other part of the constitution can be amended.

If the right to bear arms was anything other than a consequence of the US Constitution - which can be amended - then the other 95% of the world population would be claiming that right. But they are not, because it isn't. There is no such thing as a natural right; just rights granted by law.

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states

If enough people want a change, things will change.

The US Constitution is a piece of paper. It has been changed before; It can be changed again. It was written by human beings, and has been and will be amended by (or perhaps one day scrapped and replaced entirely by) human beings.

Human laws are not laws of nature.

 

[ImGod]

They're up to super majority vote. That's why it's easier to convince people to add them then it is to subtract them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you ZiprHead for proving my point. Gun Control Lobbyists are indeed displaying a Freudian complex by simultaneously equating guns and sex and also wanting to restrict guns.

The irony is that those with these unresolved issues that coalesce around fetishising firearms are the ones using the term "ammosexual".

 

[bilby]

Thank you ZiprHead for proving my point. Gun Control Lobbyists are indeed displaying a Freudian complex by simultaneously equating guns and sex and also wanting to restrict guns.

The irony is that those with these unresolved issues that coalesce around fetishising firearms are the ones using the term "ammosexual".

Sure. And Australians must have unusual levels of affection for their flocks, because they call the Kiwis "sheepshaggers", but the Kiwis never refer to themselves that way.

 

[bigfield]

Thank you ZiprHead for proving my point. Gun Control Lobbyists are indeed displaying a Freudian complex by simultaneously equating guns and sex and also wanting to restrict guns.

The irony is that those with these unresolved issues that coalesce around fetishising firearms are the ones using the term "ammosexual".

Good to see you've been boning up on your pop psychology.

 

[maxparrish]

If the right to bear arms was anything other than a consequence of the US Constitution - which can be amended - then the other 95% of the world population would be claiming that right. But they are not, because it isn't. There is no such thing as a natural right; just rights granted by law.

The US Constitution is a piece of paper. It has been changed before; It can be changed again. It was written by human beings, and has been and will be amended by (or perhaps one day scrapped and replaced entirely by) human beings.

Human laws are not laws of nature.

I doubt 95 percent of the world's people are capable of agreeing on what natural rights are, or are not - the North Korean communist, Yemeni Muslim, and stick-hut dweller of Niger could not agree on the functions of indoor plumbing fixtures, let alone on the scope and meaning of natural rights.

Yet it is true that human laws are not natural laws, nor are they laws of ethics, morality, or philosophy. What they are, and on what basis they are made, is made by choice - be it the choice of a Stalin or by the parliament of Australia. But then, are we to assume, given your tone, that all "piece of paper" are the same, justified only because they are the will of the strongest and most powerful?

If not, then laws should also be based on something more, namely; a philosophical/moral view of the nature of men and what is right and wrong. One such view is that of natural rights and liberty - that of the individual as sovereign and entitled to free choice. And whether or not you agree, it remains true that the natural right to possess and use arms was not invented 'de novo' upon the creation of the Constitution.

I won't go into the history (although I am more than happy to provide citations for your reading) but many legal scholars have traced the beginnings of these rights in both ancient Chinese and Western philosophy, as well as Judaic and Islamic law . Invariably they derive from several other views of 'rights' and/or moral imperatives. In sum:

- The right of self-defense, and the use of weapons to harm or kill others.
- The right of a class, group, or citizenry to defend their interests against tyrants or oppressive classes.
- The duty to defend one's community or sovereign.
- The right to hunt or kill game, predators, and vermin.

Weapons are far more "natural" to human experience that are weapon bans. From the paleolithic to our own era the possession of weapons by both males and females has been ubiquitous and highly valued. So much so, skill in the martial arts has been a measure of every man's worth since antiquity - at one time, every proper "gentlemen" was expected to learn the sword or the bow or various other weapons (and to carry them in daily life).

Of course, there were ancients who opposed such rights - anyone defending the absolutist divine right of Kings or the Emperors "Heavenly Mandate" looked askance at such rights. Others, such as Muslims, saw nothing wrong with weapons as long as they weren't owned by the Jews and Christians within their empires. And some tyrants actually confiscated weapons from their common citizenry, fearful of rebellion or to secure a ruling class (e.g. the ban on sword ownership for non-Samurai peasants).

But deadly hand weapons are are more 'natural' (came before) than even the plow or the wheel. What could be more natural, more "human", than that?

 

[bigfield]

Natural does not equal desirable, and in many cases the two are mutually exclusive.

If that is the only argument you have then your position is extraordinarily weak.

 

[arkirk]

I read all these comments about needing to "preserve the right" to let everyone carry around a bang bang because Founding Fathers. All this despite the current day cost to life.

And all I can think about is slavery.
Time to grow up, America.
We don't really need to have that as a right.

The right pre-existed the founding fathers; the Second Amendment does not create the right. It explicitly states that the right "shall not be infringed." The Bill of Rights was put in place as a check on the newly-formed federal government. Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights which aggrandizes the power of government at the expense of the people is inherently in error. You are free not to exercise your rights if you chose; but let the rest of up make our own decision.

You carry a gun that threatens people who want nothing to do with guns. This is not a right. Their freedom to not arm themselves has nothing to do with the negative and very coercive effect of you arming yourself. We really don't need you to arm yourself and threaten the rest of us. It is threatening and you know it. Quit acting ignorant of the fact that arming yourself is coecive. To possess a gun and always have it at the ready is to hold the power of life and death over others. Neither you nor anybody else should have a right to do that. For you to buy and maintain the means of destruction of your fellow man is for you to impose upon others an unnecessary worry...what the fuck do you intend to do with your gun. It is not a right. It is bullshit.

 

[arkirk]

Sex is used to sell everything. You fail to prove that your particular fetishizing of guns is not just you having a massive Freudian complex.

Here's another one. Scroll down to "Gun Enthusiasts & Ammo ~ Woodsterman Style"

Maybe if sex is used to sell everything, I'm using sex to sell gun control. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The gun is not a fetish to one who is against guns. It is a substitute for a penis, meant to intimidate men and women alike in the hands of a gun fetishist. The fetish is really just an abnormal and unnatural attachment to something that represent power in the fetishist's mind. On YouTube sex is used to sell guns and vice versa. The truth is these are horrible devices in hands of people with bad motives.

 

[arkirk]

More facts that speak:

Do you mean to say that 52% of people are so incredibly wimpy and cowardly they feel they need a warm gun?

 

[ZiprHead]

Thank you ZiprHead for proving my point. Gun Control Lobbyists are indeed displaying a Freudian complex by simultaneously equating guns and sex and also wanting to restrict guns.

The irony is that those with these unresolved issues that coalesce around fetishising firearms are the ones using the term "ammosexual".

But no Freudian complex when the gun-nutters mix the two? Ironic.

You seem to take great offence at a widely used funny internet meme. I think Freud would wonder why that is. Hitting a little too close to home?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's another one. Scroll down to "Gun Enthusiasts & Ammo ~ Woodsterman Style"

Maybe if sex is used to sell everything, I'm using sex to sell gun control. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The gun is not a fetish to one who is against guns. It is a substitute for a penis, meant to intimidate men and women alike in the hands of a gun fetishist. The fetish is really just an abnormal and unnatural attachment to something that represent power in the fetishist's mind.

So you are saying that for people like ZiprHead, I used the wrong word, and that I shouldn't call his view of guns as a "fetish' but as a "substitute penis".

He is the one who thinks "ammosexual" is an orientation, so "substitute penis" is pretty accurate. That makes the implications of his desire to restrict penises, I mean guns, very interesting.

 

[bleubird]

If the second amendment could be amended(which will never happen)what would be a reasonable amendment?

 

[Rhea]

Wierd thread.

It's almost like guns are to liberals as abortion is to conservatives. It shuts down their rational thought. It's also why both spend so much effort to undermine a totally different right using an eerily similar playbook of emotion, harassment, constantly attempting to regulate from different angles, etc.

This is a sloppy straw man.

I am liberal.
I am for control of guns. Not banning of them outright, but control.
To have control, we have to admit that one doesn’t have some “right” to own one that supercedes safety and any/all regulations.
Here’s where you shut down your rational thought – you say I’m talking like a conservative about abortion.
But I’ve said clearly OVER AND OVER that I am not talking about a ban.
I _OWN_ guns! And I still know that they are dangerous, moreso than cars, and some regulation can help make them safer.

Regulating seatbelts and airbags DID NOT take away your cars.

FFS. Terrible stupid strawman.

If not, then laws should also be based on something more, namely; a philosophical/moral view of the nature of men and what is right and wrong. One such view is that of natural rights and liberty - that of the individual as sovereign and entitled to free choice.

I agree. And one of those moral views is that your views are not “rights” if they bring harm to other people. Like gun ownership and its tens of thousands of dead each year that have nothing to do with “self defense”. And is exactly the reason we don’t consider it a “right” to own grenades and tanks.

 

[Rhea]

If the second amendment could be amended(which will never happen)what would be a reasonable amendment?

Thank you. For not going all irrational.

I'm open to comments and info. But this is where I'd start.
There doesn't need to be an amendment that talks about guns.
Just as there isn't one about cars and phones that people consider necessary for the pursuit of happiness.


Instead, regulations that can move with the times and the technology.

Guns can be owned by people with the following qualifications.
The following types of guns can be owned by people with the following matching qualifications
They can be carried in the following places.
Using the following safety precautions.
They can be manufactured if they contain the following safety devices.
They can be sold by the following people.
With the following controls on inventory and ownership.
Using the following background checks linked to the following government databases.
The following people shall be expressly prohibited from owning guns.
The following uses of guns are misdemeanors.
The following uses of guns are felonies.

I'd start there.

 

[dismal]

If the second amendment could be amended(which will never happen)what would be a reasonable amendment?

Thank you. For not going all irrational.

I'm open to comments and info. But this is where I'd start.
There doesn't need to be an amendment that talks about guns.
Just as there isn't one about cars and phones that people consider necessary for the pursuit of happiness.


Instead, regulations that can move with the times and the technology.

Guns can be owned by people with the following qualifications.
The following types of guns can be owned by people with the following matching qualifications
They can be carried in the following places.
Using the following safety precautions.
They can be manufactured if they contain the following safety devices.
They can be sold by the following people.
With the following controls on inventory and ownership.
Using the following background checks linked to the following government databases.
The following people shall be expressly prohibited from owning guns.
The following uses of guns are misdemeanors.
The following uses of guns are felonies.

I'd start there.

What of that does not exist now?