Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

What he said does make him ignorant. We do NOT have a living constitution, will that suddenly change because someone's vague feel good opinions state that we do in effect have a constitution (living) that can be changed at will? um..no. He says that the right to bear arms isn't necessary, and then ignores arguments for it. People actually use guns for PERSONAL defense, you sure wouldn't know it from his selective responses even after my quotes bring that reason up.

I was replying to one particular post, so I'm not going to bother addressing anything from other posts.

As for "We can change it at will", this does not imply that he doesn't know the difficulty in having it amended. Just an acknowledgement that it CAN be changed. That is not an ignorant statement.

Responsible government has matured? ... Please tell me how our government has fundamentally changed so that is no longer affected by human nature. What specifically has changed within human nature or to our form of government that would define a "maturation", that being a change so abrupt as to warrant a removal of historically proven checks and balances on governmental oppression?

"Matured" does not equal "fundamentally changed".

Anyway, generations of Americans have lived under this system and centuries of politics have operated under its direction. Therefore what may have been required centuries ago perhaps isn't as necessary today, especially with other forms of checks and balances [that are much more effective in preventing any governmental oppression].

You say you like my quotes and then you comment on crime and give an opinion that it "might" be safer to remove rights than to have them. um...does my Cesare Beccaria quote ring a bell? That quote did serve as an argument by itself, and one you seemed to have completely ignored or not understood. I see no reason to assume otherwise from your comments.

I like those quotes because I haven't heard them before and thought they were well written/argued. Yet I believe that there are many case incidents where such a 'arms to defend against those with arms' rule hasn't been necessary and has even created considerably safer societies than that of the US. And yet maybe America was of a particular nation that required this amendment? Hard to say.

And I've never liked that some insist on quoting other people instead of giving direct and contextual arguments of their own capacity. Especially when said people lived in the 18th century in completely different environments. Call it a beef.

Looking back, I'm surprised that I was able to reply so civily. You are quite the tactless ass. .....Aw, damn. There goes my moral high ground. :\

 

[etiolate]

It's highschool. Ideas will change in college. And then they'll change again in the working world, and the subarban family life.

 

[goomba]

 

[Drozmight]

Yes... my plan of founding a US dictatorship just became easier.

 

[DarienA]

High school students are too stupid to be taken seriously.

Needs repeating one more time....