It was a play on words, not a reference.

All good points except there are plenty of good American beers. In terms of average quality, we're not Belgium or Germany, but not too far behind either. I've never had an Aussie beer besides the obvious Fosters (which sucks, but I know you guys don't actually drink it), but as long as the beer is cold and bubbly…

The last time I was taught about the 9th, in a context unrelated to roe v wade, was I believe in 5th grade. My understanding was that it was meant to be a de facto laundry list of mundane personal liberties (like "right to dance" or something) that would be too numerous to actually document. But it comes up so rarely…

Yea like this:

So cops don't consider that probability today? In that case, please explain why they keep shooting toddlers with water pistols.*

When faced with a reductio ad absurdum, I recommend focusing on the absurd part as a general plan of attack. In this case, the absurdity is the notion that a civilian ought to have access to nuclear weapons and the first lady's vagina, simply because he or she disapproves of the sitting President.

Oh, I got one. By your logic, I could say something like:

This is really stupid, but I can't figure out a funny analogy to explain why.

I actually hate a lot of Americans and would be thrilled if they got shot, but Hamfist made a more nuanced point. The issue is that gun ownership, for better or worse, is part of our culture now, and "from my cold dead hands" is what a lot of people actually think. Attitudes like that take a long time to change. So…

I consider them more of an orange, if only because we signed a nuclear treaty with a brown country and I didn't want to accidentally bomb them.

You fail to understand the root cause of most gun violence. The presence of a gun automatically escalates the situation. Your position on guns seems aimed at stopping the Joker or the Hamburgler, with little regard for dumb people who make bad decisions as potential criminals.

Because Disqus sucks and I had the comments sorted by newest, I made this exact observation somewhere below. Anyone who argues for unregulated firearm ownership should also allow a terrorist to build a giant nuclear bomb in his house, legally until the split second before it detonates.

It's not so much antiquated as it just clearly does not apply to the current United States. If Florida tried to somehow acquire enough weapons to take out the entire military, I doubt that waving around Second Amendment would save their soon-to-be-nuked asses.

I think that is meant to be a feature of the Bill of Rights, not a defect. It is meant to be read and interpreted by reasonable people. Which may seem naive in retrospect, but still it's a framework that works more often than it doesn't.

No just venting

I'm somewhat intrigued by the state militia thing. As a New Jersey resident, I am a little worried about how everyone in the South is stockpiling guns. And they're usually paranoid of jack-booted storm troopers coming to take their guns, when no one is actually doing that.

Aren't nuclear bombs as well? I don't see why a strict 2nd amendment advocate shouldn't also condone terrorists walking around with explosives.

I would argue the 9th, which is purposely vague in order to apply in this sort of situation. But while I think the constitution is important, I am not exactly a constitutional literalist, so it remains to be seen how well that argument would fare in court.

Yes they should. Musical instruments are illegal in Afghanistan, and I would be rather upset if that idea gained steam.

When used for sport, guns essentially are toys. I am generally okay with someone who wants to responsibly operate firearms on private property for their own amusement. I realize that me playing GTA 5 is less of a public risk, but still, I have more sympathy for the "guns are cool" crowd because at least I get that.…