Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In our form of government, all power is derived from the people. In the case of nukes, tanks, artillery, etc etc, the government gets the power to have those from the people.
We The People cannot delegate a power we do not already have.
In simpler terms.....You cannot give away something you do not already own.
That is an admirably concise and consistent exposition of effective anarchism. I don't share it myself, but I can appreciate the tenacity required to hold it.
Correction...someone who thinks the criminals care what the law is and says.
You know, I'm pro 2A, and this agument that we should pass no laws because criminals won't follow them is even starting to drive me crazy. It has no merit. Only in a debate about gun control is it even considered valid, why, I don't know. Of course a criminals isn't going to follow a law, thats WHY he is a criminal. By this logic though, I guess we shouldn't have any laws at all right? WRONG. There are definately laws out there worth the support of the pro-gun crowd. I don't mean literal proposed laws right now, but I mean there is common sense things that can be done such as universal background checks. I have zero problems with that idea and don't see how any reasonable minded person would think otherwise.
Basically, any law has to meet one criteria..... it has to focus on keeping firearms out of criminals hands without impinging on the rights of the law abiding, and most of all, it has to make sense.
What is a gun nut. Do they own 1 weapon? 3 weapons? 7 weapons? 10 weapons?
How many rounds of ammunition do they need to be a gun nut?
What sort of profession do they belong too. Do police officers and firearm no fall into this category? What a Wallstreet Broker? Who and what is a gun nut???
You know, I'm pro 2A, and this agument that we should pass no laws because criminals won't follow them is even starting to drive me crazy. It has no merit. Only in a debate about gun control is it even considered valid, why, I don't know. Of course a criminals isn't going to follow a law, thats WHY he is a criminal. By this logic though, I guess we shouldn't have any laws at all right? WRONG. There are definately laws out there worth the support of the pro-gun crowd. I don't mean literal proposed laws right now, but I mean there is common sense things that can be done such as universal background checks. I have zero problems with that idea and don't see how any reasonable minded person would think otherwise.
Basically, any law has to meet one criteria..... it has to focus on keeping firearms out of criminals hands without impinging on the rights of the law abiding, and most of all, it has to make sense.
Yep, 20,000 current laws on the books is certainly not enough. We need many more because the criminals will follow them.
Just cut everyone in the Country down to single shot .22s and single shot shotguns. It will make everyone safer.
We have the right to free speech. However, the courts have ruled that when this right is used to do certain things, including but not limited to committing libel/slander, creating clear and present danger to other persons, and undermining national security. These acts are not permitted, and their disallowance overrides freedom of speech.
This is not equatable to any type of ban on speech itself to preemptively prevent such acts. In no case do we preemptively strip individuals of their right to speak and assemble, the only exception I can think of being with parolees in which case the priorities of the criminal justice system take precedence.
Ergo, even with a drastic liberalization of firearms laws, firearms would still not be any less restricted than speech. The use of said firearms to do similar things, such as create clear and present danger to others (by shooting in their general direction perhaps?), would still be criminal. This would not conflict with any type of reasonable anti-regulation sentiment.
I'll dumb it down even more:
Just because your neighbor plagiarizes, or slanders others, or calls the local grocery store and tells them he's hidden a bomb in the cabbages, doesn't mean that his law abiding neighbors suddenly are systematically banned from expressing their own opinions or creating their own YouTube videos.
In other words, you don't strip the Constitutional rights of whole groups of law abiding citizens just because one doofus in their town breaks the law.
Silly fools...without the 2nd....the rest is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
If you think you have the arsenal to take on the most powerful military force in history if the gov't steps out of line, you might be a gun nut.
Case in point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
Freedom of speech only has 'regulations' when it directly harms someone else. The case of libel/slander come to mind, and even then it's not a regulation imposed by the government, just an allowance that someone could sue you under certain cases. Otherwise, what you can say is unlimited.
Not even remotely true.
Quote:
Likewise, gun laws should be the same way. You can own, acquire any gun, any magazine, in any manner without any gun restriction. Only when you use it to directly harm someone is when the laws should come down on you.
Moot point since since your basis isn't even true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
We've never confiscated anyone's vocal chords, as far as I'm aware.
Completely false comparison.
This would only make sense if someone had stated that the use of guns however the user deemed fit should be allowed, as in anything that could hypothetically be done with a gun should be allowed. This would include murder, among other things.
Yours is the false comparison. You're trying to compare the right to free speech to the "right" of purchasing or shooting a gun. Except there is no right to purchase or shoot guns; there’s only a right to BEAR arms. And the same way there are conditions for you to exercise the right to free speech, there should be conditions for you to exercise the right to BEAR arms, namely which arms are available for purchase.
To deny this simple understanding of the right to BEAR arms, means that you think it should be legal to own a nuclear warhead, since according to you, that would infringe on your right to “purchase” arms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
