Question about guns

[GhostWriter16]

That I will disagree with. The right to bear arms does not mean a REQUIREMENT to own any more than a right to vote should mean you have to do so. You have every right not to own a gun. And to change one word in a common liberal quote "If you don't like guns, don't get one."

 

[JollyRoger]

Why do you hate the First Congress?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't hate them, but they didn't write the constitution

 

[JollyRoger]

And you did?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Nope, but I am just as capable as you are of reading the text contained therein

 

[JollyRoger]

But you only pretend to worship the text. When push comes to shove, you have been shown to abandon textualism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But you only pretend to worship the text. When push comes to shove, you have been shown to abandon textualism.

I do not pretend to worship it. The only God I worship is the Triune God of the Scriptures: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I do believe if we are considering a legal document to be the framework upon which our government is built, and that document says "Shall not be infringed" you darn right better NOT infringe upon it. Anything else leads to tyrannny on a government whim, ultimately. It may be less, or it may be more, but if rights are totally arbitrary to be given and taken at a whim, they don't mean anything.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yet you support infringements.

 

[El_Machinae]

Didn't read whole thread.

My reading of the 2A is that common citizens should be allowed to own any military weapon, up to and including nukes.

My personal stance is that I want to be able to own any gun I want, with no hassles or paperwork, but that people that're dumber than I am should not be allowed to own guns. More honestly, I think that registration plus mandatory insurance is the theoretical idea that I like best, for the same reason cars are registered and insured.

I have no idea how I would verify that. I imagine there aren't many experiments where scientists fire handguns at bears. Google tells me that that isn't the case, but I don't consider that authoritative.

The Danish military issues the 10mm Glock 20 automatic for use against polar bears in Greenland.

 

[BvBPL]

That I will disagree with. The right to bear arms does not mean a REQUIREMENT to own any more than a right to vote should mean you have to do so. You have every right not to own a gun. And to change one word in a common liberal quote "If you don't like guns, don't get one."

That may be, but that doesn't mean that the Congress, or any state legislature, couldn't make gun ownership a statutory duty. In fact, making it a duty for subjects of the United States to own guns is much more in line with a literal reading of the Second which states that ownership of firearms is intended to maintain a militia.

 

[JohnRM]

Didn't read whole thread.

My reading of the 2A is that common citizens should be allowed to own any military weapon, up to and including nukes.

The right to bear "arms" is almost universally understood to refer to firearms. Nukes are not firearms.

 

[JohnRM]

Okay. Bottom line. If you want any chance whatever of stronger regulations on firearms in America, you have to convince a lot of people that they are going to be safe--not safer--after the fact. I know that I am pretty damn safe when I own and carry a firearm. I and many others are for common sense regulation, but a law-abiding American should never have to apply for permission from anyone to exercise their rights. This issue is a loser for you.

 

[Phrossack]

Do tell what? I've been both attacked with and had to defend myself with a butter knife. I have scars on my fingers from cuts from the attack. Happened in junior high, at lunch. I tried to defend myself with a tray, but the kid slashed at my fingers. Do you want to see a picture of the scars? Cause I get the impression that you think I'm BSing.

I do not.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Second Amendment certainly didn't give blacks the right to own guns. That took the 14th Amendment. And even so, gun control to keep blacks and others from owning firearms was still pervasive.

 

[El_Machinae]

The right to bear "arms" is almost universally understood to refer to firearms. Nukes are not firearms.

I don't agree. Didn't it apply to cannons too? If Iran needs a nuke to defend against Israel and Washington, then hawaians might want the too

 

[GhostWriter16]

The Second Amendment certainly didn't give blacks the right to own guns. That took the 14th Amendment. And even so, gun control to keep blacks and others from owning firearms was still pervasive.

Pre-14th amendment "Rights" were only protected from Federal interference. States could thus restrict them any way they wished. I'm sure there is another clause in the constitution that really should have forbidden gun control being used exclusively against blacks but they just ignored it. Its not the second amendment though. At the time period, gun control at a state level was legal.

The 14th changed that. Now gun control anywhere is unconstitutional.

And yeah "Arms" wouldn't really include nukes. The reason it includes machine guns is because of this: Liberals say "The weaponry available now is different than back then."

True.

But the military also has better weapons now, and the whole idea was so that the common citizenry would be served by the government, rather than serving it. It was like the final, ultimate check and balance.

I don't know if canons (More equivalent to modern artilery than nukes) would have been included, but since they aren't carried as an "Arm" I don't see why they necessarily should be. Not that I'd have too much of a problem with someone that DIDN'T have a criminal record from having one

Nukes are different than anything else on the planet. We don't want some COUNTRIES having nukes. The idea of letting an individual own them is even farther than even I am going to theorize.

That said, I'd trust a US state government with one (Any of them) before I'd trust Iran.

Where I sometimes debate with myself is whether or not "Arms" that contain explosives are really arms. I'd see that as much more legitimately debatable. Machine guns are functionally no different than semi-automatic guns, they can sometimes even be the same gun and bullets! They just shoot faster.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The 14th changed that. Now gun control anywhere is unconstitutional.

Only it obviously didn't, as the excerpts from this article I posted in one of these seemingly endless "gun control" threads clearly showed:

The Secret History of Guns

If that were true anybody could carry a concealed weapon, for instance.

That is just one of the ways that "gun control" has been advocated by even the NRA, and such staunch conservatives as Ronald Reagan, even since the 14th Amendment was passed.

 

[Luckymoose]

I do not pretend to worship it. The only God I worship is the Triune God of the Scriptures: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That is like saying you only support the Constitution as written in 1838. The Bible got as many amendments over the centuries as the Constitution has at the very least. The interpretation is what matters.

 

[Farm Boy]

Machine guns are functionally no different than semi-automatic guns, they can sometimes even be the same gun and bullets! They just shoot faster.

Rate of fire and ammunition capacity before the need to reload, rate of overheating, etc. are all important distinctions on how destructive a weapon can be even if firing the same ammunition. A machine gun is distinct from an automatic rifle is distinct from a sub-machine gun.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Rate of fire and ammunition capacity before the need to reload, rate of overheating, etc. are all important distinctions on how destructive a weapon can be even if firing the same ammunition. A machine gun is distinct from an automatic rifle is distinct from a sub-machine gun.

At this point, do you expect facts to get in the way of his logic?