Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[RoboticDreams]

No, it's not. It's about preventing an unopposed tyrannical government that commands the military from subjugating the states.

So then your property is fair game to those that wish to take it. Sweet deal.

 

[whysies]

So then your property is fair game to those that wish to take it. Sweet deal.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Do you possess a sense of humor? Lighten up, "whysies" it's not that serious.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Exactly.

As far as people trying to steal guns, that might be the case if they're on display in your house (most break-ins are done by people who have at least seen the inside of the house before). But it seems like, unless you're an idiot, you would keep a gun in your bedroom. So they'd have to break in when nobody's home (not when you're in bed), so that wouldn't be a case where someone's in danger anyway.

And any item in your house worth over about $500 would have the exact same appeal to a burglar.

By the way, these are also good reasons to own a dog if you can afford one.

Re: the first bold, in my experience, most gun owners (responsible ones, at least) keep their guns in a gun safe which is rarely in the bedroom.

Re: the second bold, guns are in demand, are easily rendered unidentifiable, and are easy to transport. The same is not true of, say, my $500 sofa.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Exactly.

As far as people trying to steal guns, that might be the case if they're on display in your house (most break-ins are done by people who have at least seen the inside of the house before). But it seems like, unless you're an idiot, you would keep a gun in your bedroom. So they'd have to break in when nobody's home (not when you're in bed), so that wouldn't be a case where someone's in danger anyway.

And any item in your house worth over about $500 would have the exact same appeal to a burglar.

By the way, these are also good reasons to own a dog if you can afford one.

In my experience - which in this area is not insignificant - that is just plain wrong. If you were trying to argue that most thefts from a house are committed by people familiar with the house, I would probably agree (cleaners, maids, gardeners, babysitters, etc.). But if we're talking about breaking and entering, I've found it's typically committed by people who are just looking for an opportunity. They might case the house in some way, but I find they typically just drive through a neighborhood and look for empty houses.

This narrative that gun ownership decreases the likelihood of a break-in just doesn't work in the real world. Are there isolated cases where very publicly owning and carrying a gun could prevent a break-in? Sure. But I can't tell you how many times I've come across stolen guns that were taken out of someone's house in a break-in.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

So then your property is fair game to those that wish to take it. Sweet deal.

No, it's not. But the second amendment - being part of a bill of rights that was all about limiting the power of the federal government - has absolutely nothing to do with protecting personal property. You do not have a constitutional right to own a gun to protect your property. You have a constitutional right to own a gun to protect your liberty. This is almost explicitly written into the words of the amendment.

Why is it that people seem to have so much trouble understanding how constitutional amendments work?

 

[RoboticDreams]

No, it's not. But the second amendment - being part of a bill of rights that was all about limiting the power of the federal government - has absolutely nothing to do with protecting personal property. You do not have a constitutional right to own a gun to protect your property. You have a constitutional right to own a gun to protect your liberty. This is almost explicitly written into the words of the amendment.

Why is it that people seem to have so much trouble understanding how constitutional amendments work?

Not really the point. What you are doing is arguing semantics. It's a relative discussion based off understanding vs interpretation. I'm quite sure you understand his point.

 

[whysies]

Do you possess a sense of humor? Lighten up, "whysies" it's not that serious.

I just worry that you're actually serious and then trying to back peddle and say you're not serious. That's all.

The shit con-grotard, 2nd amendment lovin', "They took our gunz!" schtick is kind of played out though, don't you think?

 

[whysies]

Not really the point. What you are doing is arguing semantics. It's a relative discussion based off understanding vs interpretation. I'm quite sure you understand his point.

Again,

If you have a problem with someone arguing semantics then you literally know nothing about constitutional law.

Plus, this train wreck of a Supreme Court actually agrees with with your shit con-grotard interpretation.

Just one big fat face palm all around my bro.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Again,

If you have a problem with someone arguing semantics then you literally know nothing about constitutional law.

Plus, this train wreck of a Supreme Court actually agrees with with your shit con-grotard interpretation.

Just one big fat face palm all around my bro.

Dude, I've no problem with what you're saying other than this; this is a 49ers message board and people will have bias. To presume that everyone is certified in constitutional law is absurd. Should they/we be? Sure, I get that. My point is take the opinion for what it's worth and don't focus so much on the letter of the law but on what is being presented. Maybe I'm making things a little too simplistic. Are you educated on all things? Don't be JDM and pretend as if you are vastly knowledgable on all things. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

[luckyluke22]

No, it's not. But the second amendment - being part of a bill of rights that was all about limiting the power of the federal government - has absolutely nothing to do with protecting personal property. You do not have a constitutional right to own a gun to protect your property. You have a constitutional right to own a gun to protect your liberty. This is almost explicitly written into the words of the amendment.

Why is it that people seem to have so much trouble understanding how constitutional amendments work?

I have to disagree with you, and this disagreement comes from my Con Law and US History classes. The second amendment was just as much about protecting your property as it was for freedom, liberty, and to oppose oppression from outside forces because they were one and the same.

When the law was written, having a gun or rifle at home was all one had as a matter of defense. Whether it was to defend against a Redcoat or a petty thief. Taken today the law has evolved, but during the time it was written the application was for a different culture and therefore had different meaning.

Also, if you take that into account the word liberty included personal property protection. We didn't like England taking what was ours through taxation, etc and fought for freedom and liberty...

 

[NinerSickness]

Evidence that the type of tard who commits armed burglary is the type of tard who actually stakes out their victims to make sure they don't carry a shotgun with them everywhere they go?

I think you're giving criminals way too much credit here my bro.

A lot of break ins are done by people who know the victim. A lot of time that's why they're breaking in; they know when the owners are typically gone or asleep, and they know what caliber items the owners have. If they know the owners have guns they're a lot less likely to break in.

I don't know where you liberals get this idea that people who LEGALLY buy guns or conceal-carry permits are this huge problem in society. Those are the people who almost never commit gun crimes. Gun crimes are committed by young, ghetto males in cities with the strictest gun laws like Chicago.

Come to think of it, even you anti-gun people shouldn't have a problem if tons of women owned guns. Women almost never commit gun crimes. And married people commit such a small percentage of gun crime that you shouldn't have a problem with them having guns either.

So how's this for a compromise: strict gun regulations should only apply to single males under the age of 25?

 

[NinerSickness]

Right, we're talking about crime, so why do WE get to decide to kill another human being if we don't know we're in immediate danger?

Because any time an intruder is in your home there's automatically the potential for danger. Don't want the home owner to "decide" you should die? Don't break into his house.

No, it's not. It's about preventing an unopposed tyrannical government that commands the military from subjugating the states.

That too.

 

[NinerSickness]

Shit, I'd much rather an assailant have a full auto vs a semi auto. Try hitting something from 60 yards away with an AK. I've tried it, it isn't very successful.

You blew it. You were WAY too far away from Richard Sherman that time (unlike Michael Crabtree on that fade).

 

[whysies]

A lot of break ins are done by people who know the victim. A lot of time that's why they're breaking in; they know when the owners are typically gone or asleep, and they know what caliber items the owners have. If they know the owners have guns they're a lot less likely to break in.

I don't know where you liberals get this idea that people who LEGALLY buy guns or conceal-carry permits are this huge problem in society. Those are the people who almost never commit gun crimes. Gun crimes are committed by young, ghetto males in cities with the strictest gun laws like Chicago.

Come to think of it, even you anti-gun people shouldn't have a problem if tons of women owned guns. Women almost never commit gun crimes. And married people commit such a small percentage of gun crime that you shouldn't have a problem with them having guns either.

So how's this for a compromise: strict gun regulations should only apply to single males under the age of 25?

"A lot?" Got any evidence to back that up? Some statistics or something? It sounds like you're just pulling that out of your ass.

Anyway, not really a liberal. My whole point was that it's stupid for people to hide behind the 2nd Amendment or some sort of God-given or natural right that doesn't exist. Leave that to the mouth breathing chest thumpers at the NRA and try to be an intelligent person about it. That's all. Appreciate gun ownership for what it is but don't try and pretend it's something that it's not.

And in theory I don't have a problem with legal gun ownership at all. But there are mentally ill people like Toby who can legally obtain guns and that is a serious issue.

 

[whysies]

Dude, I've no problem with what you're saying other than this; this is a 49ers message board and people will have bias. To presume that everyone is certified in constitutional law is absurd. Should they/we be? Sure, I get that. My point is take the opinion for what it's worth and don't focus so much on the letter of the law but on what is being presented. Maybe I'm making things a little too simplistic. Are you educated on all things? Don't be JDM and pretend as if you are vastly knowledgable on all things. That's a recipe for disaster.

Thanks for the advice broham, the last thing anyone would want to be is a JDM.

I don't think anyone needs to be "certified" in constitutional law. It's a shit class, no one should have to take it IMO. But if you're going to make a constitutional argument at least know what you're talking about. Not only does the second amendment state its clear intent, the actual text itself can be (and should, based on its stated intent) read much more narrowly than most gunnuts read it today.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Not really the point. What you are doing is arguing semantics. It's a relative discussion based off understanding vs interpretation. I'm quite sure you understand his point.

No, it's not semantics.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

A lot of break ins are done by people who know the victim. A lot of time that's why they're breaking in; they know when the owners are typically gone or asleep, and they know what caliber items the owners have. If they know the owners have guns they're a lot less likely to break in.

I don't know where you liberals get this idea that people who LEGALLY buy guns or conceal-carry permits are this huge problem in society. Those are the people who almost never commit gun crimes. Gun crimes are committed by young, ghetto males in cities with the strictest gun laws like Chicago.

Come to think of it, even you anti-gun people shouldn't have a problem if tons of women owned guns. Women almost never commit gun crimes. And married people commit such a small percentage of gun crime that you shouldn't have a problem with them having guns either.

So how's this for a compromise: strict gun regulations should only apply to single males under the age of 25?

It's true that young men are by far the most likely to shoot someone. But the widespread availability of guns in this country makes it easy to do so. Do you honestly think gun crime would increase if, for instance, we undertook the type of serious gun reform that Australia did in the 1990s?

 

[NinerSickness]

Anyway, not really a liberal. My whole point was that it's stupid for people to hide behind the 2nd Amendment or some sort of God-given or natural right that doesn't exist. Leave that to the mouth breathing chest thumpers at the NRA and try to be an intelligent person about it.

I'm calling B.S. You're liberal like the day is long (which makes you wrong about almost everything). You just proved it with one of your self-satisfied, ad hominem slogans liberals like to repeat like parrots. "Mouth breathing."

I'm right because I called you a mouth breather. What an incredibly strong argument.

 

[whysies]

I'm calling B.S. You're liberal like the day is long (which makes you wrong about almost everything). You just proved it with one of your self-satisfied, ad hominem slogans liberals like to repeat like parrots. "Mouth breathing."

I'm right because I called you a mouth breather. What an incredibly strong argument.

I called the NRA mouth breathers dawg, not you. I know you're smarter than that, that's why I say you should distance yourself from it and rise above it.

This is the problem Sick: you're not actually addressing anything. You're pulling anecdotes out of your butt and you don't have an actual basis for your arguments. You're starting from a shitcon "Hurr durr, our guns, herp derp" point of view and letting your weird political bias color any sort of rational thought.

And like I said, that borderline scary conservativism coupled with a love of musical theater is just weird to me. But I dig it brother, keep on keeping on. It's what makes you the loveable kook that you are.

Anyway, it's neither here not there but reading the second amendment for what it actually is has nothing to do with being a liberal. It just means you can read and have a brain capable of thought.