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.
If we’re going to traffic in absolutes, we might as well take our conjectures to their logical extreme.
Look, I like guns. They’re fun to shoot, fun to own, fun to be around. I like discussing guns, investing ways to make them more accurate, of saving money by reloading rounds from used brass, of techniques for becoming more accurate and dealing with recoil and so forth. It is a pleasant and exhilarating sensation to be around guns. But a means for regular citizens to ward off a tyrannical government? That one seems to be a bit, well, poetic.
I agree. I sometimes lose track of snarky hyperbole via the interwebz.......
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
First of all, I'm an atheist, so I could care less about some fantastical idea about a creator endowing us with anything. It's not my point.
My point is that in an earlier post you said, "Governments instituted to secure creator endowed rights have no delegated power to deny, infringe or restrict the exercise thereof... unless by consent of the governed."
My question for you was/is that last phrase: "...unless by consent of the governed". If a Constitutional amendment were to pass outlawing guns, you'd have no problem with that since that would be by the consent of the governed?
Again, you are fighting an uphill battle against what is actually the case in America. You, a non hunter, telling a hunter of decades of experience what is "true".
You have made up your mind against what is a fact in our country. Go ahead and stand in the ranks of the willfully ignorant, but it will not make your life any more pleasant, nor will it make you better informed.
Dig around a bit more in your retirement in Illinois, on your own, if you care to actually learn more, not taking input from a guy you clearly do not like (that would be me).
Maybe you will realize there are actually many people like me in our country. And we really like our AR-15 type rifles for hunting.
I think you need to get over yourself a little bit.
You own a gun. Big deal. That doesn't make you the font of knowledge about OPINIONS about owning weapons. This whole issue is not about who does or does not know how to operate gun. The issue is about what the law should be. That doesn't mean that only lawyers should have the right/ability to state opinions about the issue. Since you're not a lawyer or legislator, that doesn't make you "willfully ignorant" (to use your phrase). ALL AMERICANS are qualified to have an opinion about laws and what they think this country should be. And since this issue is framed in a discussion about the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, we all have freedom of speech.
Personally, I'm not into guns. That doesn't mean I haven't been around them. That doesn't mean that I never owned guns. But for most of my life I chose to put down the toy and have other interests.
You have one voice among 323,000,000 Americans. Your voice is worth no more, nor any less than any other American's voice. Same for me. Same for Jack. Same for Harry. Same for Judy. You have one voice. You have one vote.
The second amendment is what protects their right to state their opinions with free speech.
I've never needed a gun to speak my mind.
But, using your POV, we would have had a very different America if in the days of slavery and Jim Crow all Blacks had guns. Really what you're saying is might makes right. And you assume that if the government came down hard on guns that the majority of people would support an uprising. I think you're way wrong on that, particularly since the majority of people in this country do not own guns. The majority of American are not in favor of these militia groups.
Semi-automatics have been on the market for more than 50 years. It's only recently that they have gained notoriety.
A cowboys "six shooter" is a semi automatic. They've been around for over 100 years.
Quote:
Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a bar against tyranny, and not to hunt animals for food, it stands to reason that the body of the people has to have at least a chance to defeat tyranny, and that is what semi-automatic weapons do.
The First Amendment doesn't mean you can go into a crowded building and yell "fire" or call random people on the phone threatening them either. As the SCOTUS has clearly indicated, rights are not unlimited, as even the late conservative Justice Scalia stated in DC et. al vs. Heller.
The "yelling fire in a crowed theater" analogy is a red herring fallacy.
Because that type of restriction on speech does not ban what you can say, only how and where you can say it.
It doesn't ban the word "fire" altogether..... you can stand on your own property and scream fire at the top of your lungs if you want.
Banning weapons or even certain types of weapons would only be a valid analogy if they were only banned from being used in certain places....such as a crowded theater...
Which is already illegal.
Banning a certain type of weapon from public ownership would be like banning a particular word from being spoken anyplace, anytime....ever.
If the government continues to ignore the violence, the anger will grow and we might reach a tipping point where the lawmakers will be forced to put a Constitutional Amendment on the table.
But someone who is well practiced with a speed loader can reload a revolver in a matter of 2-3 seconds.
I suck at it and I can do it in 4-5 seconds.
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.
