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.
We already have Laws that forbid us to have extreme Weapons. Fail question.
We already have a "Classification" Some things are legal some are not. Fail question.
There is no problem. Gun Grabbers make stupid Laws, we ignore them. Simple.
Not interested in "Modernist" views of Gun Grabbers. The rest of us have no problems.
People have a right to own Guns. Constitution says so. The reason one does is not up for debate. No more that one having to justify any other Constitutional right. Who wants to have authorization to exercise a Constitutional right? Does anyone want a permit to exercise free speech? Or a Permit to Assemble?
well said boris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
I see that we have an idiot talking here. There is no way to debate the use of guns in America in a logical framework. Every time anyone talks about an AR-15 or anything you can always simply say that the 2nd amendment says "X". That basically shuts down the conversation. The reason that some guns are illegal is by force and not by reasonable debate. If what you said was such a great argument then why is it that anyone who attempts to place any gun restrictions is immediately made out to be against the 2nd amendment? Because you could obviously interpret it that way.
So stop being ridiculous.
actually YOU are the one being ridiculous here. apparently you have an issue with firearms, and teh debate surrounding them, and as such YOU are trying to control the narrative, and make it what YOU want. the problem is that the constitution says one thing, while you think it should say another.
the second amendment was put there for a number of reasons;
1: our founding fathers had essentially just finished a war of independence from an oppressive government. one that taxed the colonies in excess with out letting the colonies represent themselves in parliament.
2: the founding fathers wanted the citizens of the US to be able to reset or replace an oppressive government if the citizens felt the need to, and teh ballot box wasnt working to do that.
3: the founding fathers did NOT want government placing oppressive regulations on firearms, far from it in fact as noted here;
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
you might want to learn something about history and the reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
So would you like it if they sold nuclear bombs at Walmart?
typical, that is the same stupid argument that gun grabbers use when they want to obfuscate the argument over the right to keep and bear arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Only if they were cheap Chinee knock offs of over priced American nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
In most cases the threat determines the weapons. Small pests require small guns. Big pests require bigger guns. Medium sized pests such as human assailants require medium size guns. The actual weapon choices should be made by the purchasers without any government restriction or regulation. Where those weapons are carried is also decided by the owner who should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed, anywhere they have a legal right to be.
Quote:
The principal problem with the private ownership of nuclear weapons for self defense is they are big enough to destroy the defender as thoroughly as the assailant.
not to mention that it would also destroy most everything in a few mile radius as well. kind of hard on the old neighborhood.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 01-29-2016 at 08:31 AM..
Reason: hotlinking
It makes me laugh that gun control people begin their consideration of gun ownership from foundation of emotion and then characterize the positions they arrive at as grounded in logic. They then justify rejecting gun rights arguments that are grounded in real logic / legal theory and legal application and demonize gun rights people because they don't conform to the "logic" that gunhaters feel should be applied.
The realization that their emotional "logic" does not comport to reality is why their absurd reasoning has devolved to arguing the Constitution is outdated, rights need to be rescinded or the easiest (meaning intellectually laziest), the Constitution should just be ignored . . .
As it should!
The protection sphere of the 2nd has been established by the Supreme Court as rendering government impotent in restricting the possession and use of arms shown to be of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment / used in civilized warfare and/or, of a type that can be used advantageously in the common defense of the citizens or, that is of a type in common use by the citizens at the current time.
That people need to cite the 2nd as the protector of gun rights has more to do with the 14th Amendment than the 2nd.
Just plain ridiculous. So should the average person be able to carry an RPG? How about pipe bombs? Gernades? Anti-tank missles? Seriously you just don't want to use logic because you know that your argument is ridiculous. Just in case you didn't know, common people are using large weapons right now. Common people had pipe bombs in the San Bernadino shooting. Pipe bombs are not the biggest weapons, should they be allowed? If the argument was that "I need that to defend myself against a tyrannical govt." You could make a case for much larger weapons than plain old rifles.
Obviously any thinking person knows that there is gray area and not acknowledging it makes the argument ridiculous. You could say "The second amendment says X" to having a anti-tank missile in your garage.
You accept limits on your rights to own arms on the scale of missiles and yet deny them when it comes rifles. Yet when questioned about it you don't want to have a logical framework to debate why one and not the other. That is just nonsense.
When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they didn't have to think about the destructive power that we have today. Artillery shells and gatling guns were not mobile at the time of writing. Today a normal person can be mobile in his car with a RPG. Trying to not acknowledge it is just plain ridiculous.
Just plain ridiculous. So should the average person be able to carry an RPG? How about pipe bombs? Gernades? Anti-tank missles? Seriously you just don't want to use logic because you know that your argument is ridiculous. Just in case you didn't know, common people are using large weapons right now. Common people had pipe bombs in the San Bernadino shooting. Pipe bombs are not the biggest weapons, should they be allowed? If the argument was that "I need that to defend myself against a tyrannical govt." You could make a case for much larger weapons than plain old rifles.
Obviously any thinking person knows that there is gray area and not acknowledging it makes the argument ridiculous. You could say "The second amendment says X" to having a anti-tank missile in your garage.
You accept limits on your rights to own arms on the scale of missiles and yet deny them when it comes rifles. Yet when questioned about it you don't want to have a logical framework to debate why one and not the other. That is just nonsense.
When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they didn't have to think about the destructive power that we have today. Artillery shells and gatling guns were not mobile at the time of writing. Today a normal person can be mobile in his car with a RPG. Trying to not acknowledge it is just plain ridiculous.
every time you make a ridiculous argument like these, you continually lose credibility.
I see that we have an idiot talking here. If what you said was such a great argument then why is it that anyone who attempts to place any gun restrictions is immediately made out to be against the 2nd amendment? Because you could obviously interpret it that way.
So stop being ridiculous.
First of all, you lose any credibility you have when the first words are name calling, which is also a personal attack, and should be reported.
I, However, won't call you an idiot or any other names. People can decide on their own.
My argument is not an argument, its fact. If your trying to restrict the right to own a Firearm that was legal by Law, you are Anti-Gun, and against the Constitution, nothing else. No one gave you the right to place restrictions on what I can, or can not own, by Law. If you don't like the Constitution, tell your Congressman, and try to get an Amendment. That's what its there for. You people are a threat to our Rights, and the Country.
In the mean time, you can try and pass all the little Laws and Restrictions you want, by skirting around the Rights of others, but its meaningless. No one will comply. Its already happening all over the Country. "NO COMPLIANCE" Remember those words. Fact...
Just plain ridiculous. So should the average person be able to carry an RPG? How about pipe bombs? Gernades? Anti-tank missles? Seriously you just don't want to use logic because you know that your argument is ridiculous. Just in case you didn't know, common people are using large weapons right now. Common people had pipe bombs in the San Bernadino shooting. Pipe bombs are not the biggest weapons, should they be allowed? If the argument was that "I need that to defend myself against a tyrannical govt." You could make a case for much larger weapons than plain old rifles.
Obviously any thinking person knows that there is gray area and not acknowledging it makes the argument ridiculous. You could say "The second amendment says X" to having a anti-tank missile in your garage.
You accept limits on your rights to own arms on the scale of missiles and yet deny them when it comes rifles. Yet when questioned about it you don't want to have a logical framework to debate why one and not the other. That is just nonsense.
When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they didn't have to think about the destructive power that we have today. Artillery shells and gatling guns were not mobile at the time of writing. Today a normal person can be mobile in his car with a RPG. Trying to not acknowledge it is just plain ridiculous.
There you go again. Utter nonsense. We already have Laws that restrict the ridiculous things you mention, in your feeble attempt as a Gun Grabber.
Call me when some one hits your house with a Nuke, and I will be glad to listen to you. (By the way, you can't own a RPG and carry it around inyour car....sheesh...)
No one needs your approval or you permission to own everything that's legal to own, even if you have "Hissy Fits" over it. Chill out. You may have a stroke.
So would you like it if they sold nuclear bombs at Walmart?
If they where small, the mushroom cloud was no higher than knee high, and could only blow off your sneakers, make the hair on your legs fall off. Oh, Yea, and small enough to be tossed, like a marble.
There you go again. Utter nonsense. We already have Laws that restrict the ridiculous things you mention, in your feeble attempt as a Gun Grabber.
Call me when some one hits your house with a Nuke, and I will be glad to listen to you. (By the way, you can't own a RPG and carry it around inyour car....sheesh...)
No one needs your approval or you permission to own everything that's legal to own, even if you have "Hissy Fits" over it. Chill out. You may have a stroke.
Yes we do have laws that restrict gun ownership of certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS ruled them "reasonable".
Based on your post, I must conclude that you agree with the concept of reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up????
I quote you for reference......" We already have Laws that restrict the ridiculous things you mention,".
So an intelligent person would conclude that since you site the gun restrictions to defend your stance, then it's not the absolute "Shall Not Be Infringed". It boils down to a matter of degree when it comes to "What, Exactly" is considered "Reasonable". For if you site the laws on the books to support your 2nd amendment stance, then you must believe that reasonable restrictions are within the scope of the constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Am I reading your post correctly? If not, give me an intelligent reading of your meaning as it pertains to "Shall Not Be Infringed", vs. Reasonable restrictions.
Thank you
BTW, I might remind those 2nd extremist advocates that anyone who is for reasonable restrictions does not necessarily want to take everyone's guns away.
Just plain ridiculous. So should the average person be able to carry an RPG? How about pipe bombs? Gernades? Anti-tank missles? Seriously you just don't want to use logic because you know that your argument is ridiculous. Just in case you didn't know, common people are using large weapons right now. Common people had pipe bombs in the San Bernadino shooting. Pipe bombs are not the biggest weapons, should they be allowed? If the argument was that "I need that to defend myself against a tyrannical govt." You could make a case for much larger weapons than plain old rifles.
Actually yes, they should.
Consider the amendment.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
[as voted]
Ok now people keep talking about where the cart and the horse between militia and arms exists. It's clear the people keep and bear arms from the amendment. One purpose of them keeping and bearing arms is for service in the militia. If they're to serve in the militia (which they are responsible to do, if called upon), the weapons they should be expected to bear would be the weapons carried by typical light infantry (US designation in brackets as examples), so a select fire assault rifle/carbine (M4/M16), pistol (M9/M11), light machine guns (M249), Shotguns (M590A1), grenades (M87), submachine guns (MP5/MP7), anti-tank/assault (AT4, SMAW, M203), Mines (Claymores). Now that's not that people are required to have all of these, but they should be able to buy all of these (plus other typical weapons that may not be ubiquitous but still used by light infantry, like DMR's, battle rifles, sniper rifles, etc.).
This isn't exhaustive by any means, and doesn't negate the ownership of other weapons used in similar roles not listed or their civilian equivalents. It's a non-exhaustive list of categories not specific weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
Obviously any thinking person knows that there is gray area and not acknowledging it makes the argument ridiculous. You could say "The second amendment says X" to having a anti-tank missile in your garage.
You accept limits on your rights to own arms on the scale of missiles and yet deny them when it comes rifles. Yet when questioned about it you don't want to have a logical framework to debate why one and not the other. That is just nonsense.
The nonsense is that some state that the militia have the right, but the amendment states the people have the right. Then go on to state what should not be owned are precisely the weapons that a well regulated militia may be expected to possess.
There actually are not many limits on owning missiles, SpaceX didn't have any issues with it, many hobby rocketeers don't have any issues with it. And as the actress said to the bishop, it ain't the size of your missile that's important, it's the payload it's carrying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they didn't have to think about the destructive power that we have today. Artillery shells and gatling guns were not mobile at the time of writing. Today a normal person can be mobile in his car with a RPG. Trying to not acknowledge it is just plain ridiculous.
Why not? Puckle guns(1718) were in existence prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the Belton Flintlock's sole reference is in records of correspondence between Belton and the Continental Congress, his flintlock could fire 16 or 20 balls (bullets) in sixteen, ten of five seconds. Did the Continental Congress have memory retention issues since a large number also served in the early US congress and constitutional debates?
Artillery shells have always been mobile, they move once in one direction, from the gun to the target. The guns were always mobile too, it's hard to persuade your enemies to form square directly in range of your guns, so if you want to use your guns they have to be moved, thus mobile, whether it was a 16 pounder, or a 105mm Howitzer, now they're termed self propelled, but they've always been mobile.
Most of the cannon used in the revolutionary war was privately owned (or owned by communities, not government) too. Which at the time were the "assault" weapons of the time.
So when the founders wrote, they knew about rapid fire weapons, and large guns, and explosives. They also knew they were on the cusp of the Industrial revolution, and could reasonably be expected to understand progress would not be limited to non-military applications, in fact then as now, progress tends to occur in the military first and non-military second.
So claims they could not have foreseen have a paper thin claim, especially as the entire US Constitution was a innovation in itself, these people were forward looking, do you think none of them were forward looking enough to understand that it also applied to the 2nd Amendment?
Yes we do have laws that restrict gun ownership of certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS ruled them "reasonable".
Based on your post, I must conclude that you agree with the concept of reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up????
I quote you for reference......" We already have Laws that restrict the ridiculous things you mention,".
So an intelligent person would conclude that since you site the gun restrictions to defend your stance, then it's not the absolute "Shall Not Be Infringed". It boils down to a matter of degree when it comes to "What, Exactly" is considered "Reasonable". For if you site the laws on the books to support your 2nd amendment stance, then you must believe that reasonable restrictions are within the scope of the constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Am I reading your post correctly? If not, give me an intelligent reading of your meaning as it pertains to "Shall Not Be Infringed", vs. Reasonable restrictions.
Thank you
BTW, I might remind those 2nd extremist advocates that anyone who is for reasonable restrictions does not necessarily want to take everyone's guns away.
I don't want to ban the first amendment, I just want to tell you what books you can read and what journalists can write.
Supporting civil rights means supporting all of them. If any other rights as codified in the bill of rights was treated like you and other want to treat the second amendment you would be up in arms, pardon the pun. The 2nd amendment is equal to all those other civil rights, it is not a lower tier right.
The only gun laws that were approved by scotus as reasonable were not allowing felons and mentally ill from having guns, that is it.
Maybe some historical understanding for the need of arms will help you out.
Datos, ne quisquam seruiat, enses. (The sword was given for this, that none need live a slave.) - Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
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.
