They're taking your guns! (again)

[Juan_Bottom]

No, I don't know anyone who thinks that way. Those people live somewhere near DaGip.
You know, It's more private so you can get away with owning "the good stuff."

[MeDeFe]

No, I don't know anyone who thinks that way. Those people live somewhere near DaGip.
You know, It's more private so you can get away with owning "the good stuff."

You mean protecting your Marihuana farm?

[GabonX]

Doesnt this fuckin thing violate, oh i dont know, The Right To Bear Arms?

Wow...

The right to bear arms ≠ the right to bear any arms.

Hence the laws against you owning your own personal nuke, or taking your loaded tank with you into town "just in case."

First of all your talking about the wrong part of the Second Ammendment. What you are referring to is the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is additionally granted but the two are not the same thing. I'm going to focus on the right to keep arms here..

Barring the general populace from having access to military grade weapons does indeed violate the Second Ammendment. In the Revolutionary War and up to the Civil War the military was composed largely of people who brought their own weapons, hence the general populace had access to military grade weapons. The Second Ammendment was written by revolutionaries who thought that there may come a time when the general populace may need to again fight against a corrupt government. The Second Ammendment was written not in regards to hunting and not only in regards to defense of the home against burglars, but so that the general population would be able to rival the federal government in terms of material power. Following are a number of quotes made by the founders of the United States which support my argument.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

The great object is, that every man be armed.

If we look at the exact phrasing of the Second Ammendment it states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The key word there is infinged. To infringe means to lesson, diminish, or take away. Given that when the Second Ammendment was written there were no gun laws and that the general population had access to military grade weapons of the time it becomes apparent that any restrictions on firearms does indeed violate the US Constitution.

You make a good point about nuclear missiles not being able to be possesed by the general population but this in no way can be extended to say that it is constitutional to restrict fire arms. You cannot "bear" a nuclear weapon as it is not operated from an individuals hands but rather from a complex technological system. Any weapon that a man can hold and operate from there person must be allowed. Missiles do not fall under this category.

Honestly a strong argument could be made that with the Consitution as it is written the people must be allowed to possess missiles but I would argue that this is not the case as a person cannot bear a missile from his person. The Constitution should probably be modified to clarify this.

[MeDeFe]

So a tank is ok? It's operated with one's hands after all.

[GabonX]

So a tank is ok? It's operated with one's hands after all.

Can an individual "bear" a tank? I would argue that because a person is seated inside of it that it would not qualify but a strong argument could be made that as the constitution is written it must be allowed.

If the government becomes tyrranical how is the population to oppose tanks?

[MeDeFe]

I already proposed what I see as a far more efficient way of preventing tyrannical governments in the first place.

[Backglass]

So a tank is ok? It's operated with one's hands after all.

Or a shoulder launched heat-seeking missile? Flamethrower? Anti-personnel mines?

As for the constitution, I seriously doubt our forefathers conceived of a day when a single person could potential kill hundreds of people in a few seconds. This was a different time when weapons were MUCH simpler. Weapons were used for hunting and simple protection. I believe you should be able to own all the guns you want of that era.

Today's modern weaponry should fall under different scrutiny. I also do not believe that the "right to bear arms" means you have a right to amass an arsenal of hi-tech weapons to create your own personal army. This was not the intent.

So let follow this down the road of time. In the future when someone invents a miniature nuclear device that fits inside a bullet casing...should we allow people to own and fire as many as they want?

[KoolBak]

Now you're just being silly....go have a beer

[MeDeFe]

Now you're just being silly....go have a beer

To extinguish the flamethrower? You can actually bear one of those, are you allowed to own them in the USA?

[KoolBak]

lol....well I have a 4 foot wand that attaches to a propane tank that shoots about a 2 foot flame....for weeds.....I think thats the extent of it

[GabonX]

So a tank is ok? It's operated with one's hands after all.

Or a shoulder launched heat-seeking missile? Flamethrower? Anti-personnel mines?

As for the constitution, I seriously doubt our forefathers conceived of a day when a single person could potential kill hundreds of people in a few seconds. This was a different time when weapons were MUCH simpler. Weapons were used for hunting and simple protection. I believe you should be able to own all the guns you want of that era.

Today's modern weaponry should fall under different scrutiny. I also do not believe that the "right to bear arms" means you have a right to amass an arsenal of hi-tech weapons to create your own personal army. This was not the intent.

So let follow this down the road of time. In the future when someone invents a miniature nuclear device that fits inside a bullet casing...should we allow people to own and fire as many as they want?

You're ignoring the fact that the Framers clearly intended for the general population to be able to rival the Federal Government and military, It's very clear that this was the case.

Now you're just being silly....go have a beer

To extinguish the flamethrower? You can actually bear one of those, are you allowed to own them in the USA?

Actually they're distributed as children's toys. Have you ever thought of the potential for one of these?



All it takes is a torch lighter, a rod to extend the lighter past past the barrel and tape.

[MeDeFe]

Now you're just being silly....go have a beer

To extinguish the flamethrower? You can actually bear one of those, are you allowed to own them in the USA?

Actually they're distributed as children's toys. Have you ever thought of the potential for one of these?



All it takes is a torch lighter, a rod to extend the lighter past past the barrel and tape.

Some plastics dissolve when brought into contact with fuel, are you sure that ^ will work?

[GabonX]

Now you're just being silly....go have a beer

To extinguish the flamethrower? You can actually bear one of those, are you allowed to own them in the USA?

Actually they're distributed as children's toys. Have you ever thought of the potential for one of these?



All it takes is a torch lighter, a rod to extend the lighter past past the barrel and tape.

Some plastics dissolve when brought into contact with fuel, are you sure that ^ will work?

Yes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYpB8Rx ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3vcXp_7O8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yFUtJhUb7Q

[GabonX]

After doing a bit of reading (I've never done this, just figured that it could be done) it seems that using many fuels will disolve the plastic. It's better to use alcohol as this does not damage the gun.

[spurgistan]

You're ignoring the fact that the Framers clearly intended for the general population to be able to rival the Federal Government and military, It's very clear that this was the case.

OK... I'll bite. Where in any document does it "clearly" say that we are legally permitted (or obligated, as the quoted text insinuates) to arm ourselves to be able to compete with government forces?

[GabonX]

You're ignoring the fact that the Framers clearly intended for the general population to be able to rival the Federal Government and military, It's very clear that this was the case.

OK... I'll bite. Where in any document does it "clearly" say that we are legally permitted (or obligated, as the quoted text insinuates) to arm ourselves to be able to compete with government forces?

We know that this is the case because it was written about in great detail by the founders. There is an abundance of primary source material and recorded quotes, a few of which I've posted, which demonstrate that this was indeed the case.

I'm not sure what exactly your asking for as I've already provided a number of quotes. I can provide many more if you like...

[GabonX]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. "



- Thomas Jefferson

[Backglass]

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was also a slave owner but we abolished that practice. Are we going against the will of our forefathers?

Times change...a lot can happen in two hundred years. Our country should not remain static to the ways of a centuries old people, but, as our founders ALSO wrote, continue to evolve as a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". And if in the future "the people" no longer want guns, we should obey their will.

It makes sense now why the Gun Nut crowd and Bible Thumpers are often the same. Old/ancient texts are to be taken literally with no frame of reference to the era in which they were written.

[GabonX]

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was also a slave owner but we abolished that practice. Are we going against the will of our forefathers?

Times change...a lot can happen in two hundred years. Our country should not remain static to the ways of a centuries old people, but, as our founders ALSO wrote, continue to evolve as a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". And if in the future "the people" no longer want guns, we should obey their will.

It makes sense now why the Gun Nut crowd and Bible Thumpers are often the same. Old/ancient texts are to be taken literally with no frame of reference to the era in which they were written.

Jefferson was a paradox. He owned slaves but opposed slavery and freed his slaves in his will. You're also ignoring the fact that the constitution was amended to abolish slavery while the second amendment has not been touched.

Essentially you're arguing that we should ignore the constitution and the Bill of Rights in which case you are not guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. The constitution can be modified but most people do not want to have the second amendment, or any amendment on the Bill of Rights, to be repealed.

"The people" are far from being unified on the issue of whether or not guns should be allowed. Millions of people don't want to have their civil liberties taken away, and it's very relevant that the ones who support the Second Amendment are armed. Regardless, we have a constitution, which has not been modified, which states that people have the right to keep and bear arms. By your logic if "the people" (which I'm guessing you mean to be the majority of people as there are plenty who are against this ban) want to reinstate slavery or have a government mandated religion at some point in the future they should be allowed to do these things. If you guns away from "the people" they have no recourse to address a hostile majority.

As for having no frame of reference you've aptly described yourself. I've provided a great deal of reference as to what the framers had in mind. On the other hand you have a tendency to contradict yourself and show fundamental misunderstanding of the topics at hand from post to post. There are plenty of people here who I disagree with but can debate (spurgistan, pimp dave and more) because they have a well thought out and consistant position. You are not one of these people.

[Backglass]

Jefferson was a paradox. He owned slaves but opposed slavery and freed his slaves in his will.

Sure. Who needs slaves when your dead! But hey, keep em around while your living. Nice.

You're also ignoring the fact that the constitution was amended to abolish slavery while the second amendment has not been touched.

So far, yes.

Essentially you're arguing that we should ignore the constitution and the Bill of Rights in which case you are not guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

Words in mouth, etc.

The constitution can be modified but most people do not want to have the second amendment, or any amendment on the Bill of Rights, to be repealed.

Yup...most people today. Much like slavery, this also may change.

Millions of people don't want to have their civil liberties taken away, and it's very relevant that the ones who support the Second Amendment are armed.

I am not in support of banning all guns...never have I said anything as such. You are placing me in that box on your own. But you and others like you have an "all or nothing" approach. Any limit whatsoever is, in your mind, the same as a full scale ban. I assume you are one of those that says "Oh first they restrict the number of guns you can have, then they will take them all away!"...the slippery slope argument. I believe this is silly and irrational.

Regardless, we have a constitution, which has not been modified, which states that people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Thank you Mr. Obvious!

By your logic if "the people" (which I'm guessing you mean to be the majority of people as there are plenty who are against this ban) want to reinstate slavery or have a government mandated religion at some point in the future they should be allowed to do these things.

Raiders at the door eh? As much as I would detest either of those, it would be the will of the people which is what our nation is all about, is it not? I think the chances of slavery being reinstated are zero. A national religion however? If Sarah Palin had her way it would happen in a heartbeat.

As for having no frame of reference you've aptly described yourself. I've provided a great deal of reference as to what the framers had in mind.

Unless you posses a magical time machine, you have provided your opinion and interpretation of what the framers had in mind. I believe that, were they alive today, they would be both amazed and appalled at how their nation has run with their initial blueprint.

On the other hand you have a tendency to contradict yourself and show fundamental misunderstanding of the topics at hand from post to post. There are plenty of people here who I disagree with but can debate (spurgistan, pimp dave and more) because they have a well thought out and consistant position. You are not one of these people.

And you like to put words into peoples mouths and place them in one of two collumns: "FOR" or "AGAINST". There is a third column of which your are blind: REASONABLE LIMITS and that's where I fall. . Obviously I have touched a fundamental raw nerve and if this is how you rationalize your side of the argument to feel better about your position, vent/dismiss away. I can handle it. Most of the time, so can my opponent. You are not one of these people.

[Juan_Bottom]

I am not in support of banning all guns...never have I said anything as such. You are placing me in that box on your own.

You should have made your position known. For seriously because even I wasn't sure.

Unless you posses a magical time machine, you have provided your opinion and interpretation of what the framers had in mind.

His "opinion" is shared by a great many, including the founding fathers. What the hell did they use to defeat the established government of their day? Marsmallow shooters? Even the Wiskey Rebellion is an example of this.

REASONABLE LIMITS and that's where I fall. .

Were do you stand?

Obviously I have touched a fundamental raw nerve and if this is how you rationalize your side of the argument to feel better about your position, vent/dismiss away. I can handle it. Most of the time, so can my opponent. You are not one of these people.

I don't understand you. You were not very clear on your position and then got angry when someone catagore-ized you on their own? What did you expect? You do this to me.

[mpjh]

It is a truth of this century, as it has been since our own revolution, that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is no accident that the government is armed to the teeth.

[Hologram]

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was also a slave owner but we abolished that practice. Are we going against the will of our forefathers?

Times change...a lot can happen in two hundred years. Our country should not remain static to the ways of a centuries old people, but, as our founders ALSO wrote, continue to evolve as a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people". And if in the future "the people" no longer want guns, we should obey their will.

Well, in that case, why don't we put it to a national referendum? That way politicians hardly have to touch it and the will of the people will be heard.

[Juan_Bottom]

It is a truth of this century, as it has been since our own revolution, that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is no accident that the government is armed to the teeth.

I whole-heartedly disagree. The power of a government comes from it's ability to lie, and control it's population. Guns are not needed to do this. All you need is to control the mob.

The power of the people may come from guns... I don't think so but maybe....

[Hologram]

It is a truth of this century, as it has been since our own revolution, that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is no accident that the government is armed to the teeth.

I whole-heartedly disagree. The power of a government comes from it's ability to lie, and control it's population. Guns are not needed to do this. All you need is to control the mob.

The power of the people may come from guns... I don't think so but maybe....

Guns, however, are the easiest and usually most effective way to do this. Fear of death is a powerful motivator.