sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
And certainly too there was no Ba'hai or Buddhist followers in the US either, so forget about the whole first amendement thing for those guys.
~Chris
How Do You Feel About Gun Rights?
- Thread starter Bigfoot3814
- Start date
And certainly too there was no Ba'hai or Buddhist followers in the US either, so forget about the whole first amendement thing for those guys.
~Chris
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Guns are great fun. Love shooting them, looking at them, holding them.
I know lots of people that own guns and use them regularly, many of them wouldn't hurt a fly.
Guns are also power, and the power should be held by the people.
I know lots of people that own guns and use them regularly, many of them wouldn't hurt a fly.
Guns are also power, and the power should be held by the people.
PiMan
Deity
I think gun ownership for everyone is a stupid idea and it only increases danger to people, but I also know that the only way to get the guns away from most US citizens is to amend away the second amendment. And that is likely to never happen within my lifetime, if ever.
musekick
Loves a good question
Regardless of how strict gun control may become, if a person wants a gun they will find a way to get one. I believe that if you know how to handle a gun and you aren't a sociopath or anything you should be allowed to own one.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I don't care a lot about gun rights, and am a bit ambivalent. I've never really been around them much, and neither have either of my parents. My dad is (or at least was during the Clinton years) a member of the NRA, even though he never owned a gun and never planned to own one. I was raised to prefer a strict interpretation of constitutional rights, so I guess I at least somewhat support it. On the other hand, my mom's best friend in high school was killed when her father's rifle went off while being cleaned, so my mom has long been quite anti-gun and has influenced me not to like firearms very much either.
Generally I support the right to bear arms lukewarmly and see the benefit of some regulation. I tend to think that improving enforcement is more important that more regulation.
Sometimes I like to argue that guns (at least machine guns, bazookas, etc...or maybe just their ammunition) shouldn't qualify as arms because in Latin it makes a lot more sense to call them tela than arma. Tela means offensive or projectile weapons, while Arma means a defensive weapon, tool, or armor. What counts as which can vary though, as it has more to do with how it is used than what the weapon is. When you have a sword and shield then the sword is tela and the shields arma, but then you have to use your sword to block an enemy's sword then the sword is arma. Thrown javelins and arrows are pretty much always tela, but I guess they could probably count as arma if used as cover fire. I don't think we have a right to Tela, only to defensive weapons.
The punctuation of the second amendment has always seemed extremely odd to me. Why would you put a comma in the middle of Nominative Absolute? You certainly wouldn't do that in an Ablative Absolute in Latin (granted, you generally wouldn't use any punctuation at all in Latin).
Generally I support the right to bear arms lukewarmly and see the benefit of some regulation. I tend to think that improving enforcement is more important that more regulation.
Sometimes I like to argue that guns (at least machine guns, bazookas, etc...or maybe just their ammunition) shouldn't qualify as arms because in Latin it makes a lot more sense to call them tela than arma. Tela means offensive or projectile weapons, while Arma means a defensive weapon, tool, or armor. What counts as which can vary though, as it has more to do with how it is used than what the weapon is. When you have a sword and shield then the sword is tela and the shields arma, but then you have to use your sword to block an enemy's sword then the sword is arma. Thrown javelins and arrows are pretty much always tela, but I guess they could probably count as arma if used as cover fire. I don't think we have a right to Tela, only to defensive weapons.
The punctuation of the second amendment has always seemed extremely odd to me. Why would you put a comma in the middle of Nominative Absolute? You certainly wouldn't do that in an Ablative Absolute in Latin (granted, you generally wouldn't use any punctuation at all in Latin).
Gogf
Indescribable
I'm not asking whether or not you AGREE with the first part of the amendment. I'm saying that any interpretation of the amendment has to take into account the existence of that first phrase.
If the purpose is to have weapons for a militia, restricting ownership to arma instead of tela doesn't make sense, does it?
Me, too. The whole sentence seems low on proper transitions between phrases.MagisterCultuum said:
And certainly too there was no Ba'hai or Buddhist followers in the US either, so forget about the whole first amendement thing for those guys.
~Chris
Ah but Buddhists existed. Tough draw for Baha'i, but their loss is countered with Scientology losing any status.
Gogf
Indescribable
Great, but who cares? In English, "arm" has a meaning that is not dependent on the specific denotation or connotation of its root word.
One important factor could be that the second amendment is written in English.
By the way, those of you saying things like "I don't think we have a right to..." should be careful not to confuse positive and normative statements! "I don't think we have a right to" means "I don't interpret this constitutional passage as granting us the right to" NOT "I don't think we should have a right to."
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I think citizens certainly have a right to any infantry type weapons, even machine guns. I'm pretty sure it was infantry weapons that were in the minds of the founders. It's certainly not anything like nukes. Limiting people to handguns, in case of a collapse of the Republic from within or from a foreign source, is not all that useful.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
The punctuation of the Second Amendment is a matter of some dispute. I've also seen rendered like this:
...
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
With that punctuation it makes perfect sense, but the usual way drives be nuts.
Thats what a vote is for...
I dislike the term gun, a gun is an artillery piece, rather obvious that there are no retired Marines posting on this thread.
The second amendment seems to be used by people who do not think through what it means.
The right to keep arms, would you be happy with a neighbor with a tonne of 81mm HE and WP bombs in his basement ?
After all a 81mm tube is an infantry weapon.
The second amendment seems to be used by people who do not think through what it means.
The right to keep arms, would you be happy with a neighbor with a tonne of 81mm HE and WP bombs in his basement ?
After all a 81mm tube is an infantry weapon.
I think Americans have a right to guns, but they shouldn't.
I reckon they should restrict everyone to a jagged bottlecap, or perhaps a pointy stick. But then again, giving everyone pointy sticks probably wouldn't be a good idea.
I think one of the only good things John Howard did for Australia was institute strict gun control.
Really, what purpose does owning a gun serve? How can it possibly be used for good? And don't tell me it's in case of a foreign invasion, because if the American army can't stop any invaders, then the USA is screwed anyway.
I reckon they should restrict everyone to a jagged bottlecap, or perhaps a pointy stick. But then again, giving everyone pointy sticks probably wouldn't be a good idea.
I think one of the only good things John Howard did for Australia was institute strict gun control.
Really, what purpose does owning a gun serve? How can it possibly be used for good? And don't tell me it's in case of a foreign invasion, because if the American army can't stop any invaders, then the USA is screwed anyway.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Otago raises an interesting point about 'infantry-type weapons'. Even the infantry squad is equipped with things I wouldn't want my neighbor to have; things get worse from there. Any restriction to 'infantry-type weapons' will be pretty lethal no matter where you draw the line.
Camikaze said:
And its still easy for the bad guys to get their hands on all the nice illegal weapons.... I'll grant we haven't had a repeat performance of Port Arthur but its really just a matter of time before someone else with some issues decides to do it again, automatic weapons or no your still going to cause serious damage against unarmed people. Gun controls are great for mitigating some of the lethality... but its not ever going to stop determined people doing what they want. You need other safeguards preferably active ones not passive gate-keeping systems.
