Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2016, 06:46 PM
 
34,054 posts, read 17,071,203 times
Reputation: 17212

Advertisements

and not being able to buy kiddie porn is no sifferent than limiting what types of guns can be bought.

Both limits for the good of society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2016, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
9,437 posts, read 7,369,351 times
Reputation: 7979
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
Fair enough. I'm just curious.

Not that it'd matter for me anyway, living in California. Here, you'd be criminally prosecuted for defending yourself with a butter knife.
In Seattle you can be arrested for violating a 'no weapons law' carrying something the court rules is not "arms" and protected by the 2nd amendment. Thats right, in Seattle something can be a weapon, but not arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 09:27 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Both amendments are limited in scope. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected via the 1st amendment, nor is kiddie porn.

All amendments have limits for the good of society.
Yelling fire is not a speech. It's a call for action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 09:31 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
By that logic I guess they couldn't imagine firearms (which by the way the 2nd doesn't mention) beyond Revolutionary War weapons so I guess all others should be banned?
Semi automatic guns were already available at the time of signing the bill of rights. Lewis, Jefferson's personal secretary, actually took one on his trip with Clark and show it off to the Indians as a show of power. The congress also authorized to purchase some.

To say they didn't know or couldn't foresee this is completely ignorant.

Also I was being sarcastic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 09:32 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
and not being able to buy kiddie porn is no sifferent than limiting what types of guns can be bought.

Both limits for the good of society.
Children can't give consent.

Guns are inanimate objects.

Apples and oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:21 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
I find it funny how someone can simply make something up and get people to discuss it like there is some factual basis behind it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,461 posts, read 7,089,783 times
Reputation: 11702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
Both should be protected. I'm not disputing that.

Now, I'm not exactly sure *why* a normal everyday civilian needs a semi-automatic... o_O But it should indeed be protected.
The sheer number of people who don't know the difference between an automatic and a semi automatic is astounding.


Automatic = machine gun

Semi-automatic = 1 bullet fired per trigger pull.


Semi-autuomatics have been around for a very long time and were not out of the imagination of the founders when the Constitution was written. There were even prototype semi-autos in existence, so the argument is based on misinformation to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 04:53 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,461 posts, read 7,089,783 times
Reputation: 11702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
Excuse me for not being a gun expert. Seems to me any normal handgun would do the job just fine (for self-defense).
Ummm...most "normal" handguns are semi-automatic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 05:00 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,783,759 times
Reputation: 24863
The core of the argument is to ban ALL firearms. The reasoning is simple. If all guns are banned and confiscated then all murders will stop. This is based on the idea that without guns people will stop killing each other.

The actual political reason for grabbing guns is to disarm the poor. That is based on the idea the poor people are criminals (if they weren't criminals they would not be poor) and they use guns to rob proper people. Properly affluent people do not rob others so they do not need guns. Therefore guns are not needed so all of them can be destroyed.

The idea of banning semiautomatic firearms is just a step beyond banning full automatic machine guns. After banning semi autos they will try to ban multi shot guns and then all guns together. They believe the result will be a peaceful nonviolent utopia.

Several thousands of years of human existence before guns were invented does not support their contention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 05:11 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,783,759 times
Reputation: 24863
Addendum: The 2nd Amendment was written to provide the civilian population with the right to keep weapons for use in a war. The armed civilians were expected to provide their own weapons so the right to keep them was set into the Constitution. Following this logic all of our civilians should be required to obtain current weapons as well as mandatory military training as part of the Militia. This would allow the country to minimize the size and use of our standing army.

So, instead of effectively banning full automatic guns in the hands of civilians they should be mandated. Civilians, all civilians, should be required to attend military training in the use of these weapons.

Among other things this would greatly increase the risk of armed robbery as everybody would be armed and trained in military uses. Part of this training is self defense. Robbing a convenience store is one thing when the proprietor is unarmed. Robbing an armed clerk is quite another. Beating an unarmed woman is one thing. Beating a woman holding a gun is also quite another.


I believe that everyone has the right to own and carry a gun. Nobody has the right to commit a crime with one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top