2nd Amendment Limit Question

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Thanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be. And that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys.

That's been rather thoroughly debunked before - see Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Tanks can't get everywhere and have to rearm/refuel. Planes have to rearm/refuel.

Quote

Drew reminded us that "Surface to air missiles are specifically prohibited by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g." Would it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional?

Once again, I'm not seeing convincing arguments that the 2nd permits "the people" to keep and bear only firearms that can be transported and used by an individual.

"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Coreece 189]

Quote

"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

Oh, but this is all "just a mental exercise right now of course." -post 20

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

You might have more luck with a better source of knowledge than 18th century sports journalism.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

You might have more luck with a better source of knowledge than 18th century sports journalism.

Feel free to find a single quote from the Founders that counters the example given of their thinking on the subject.

I'll wait.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

*Did* private individuals own cannons (the equivalent of the nukes/missiles/tanks mentioned) at the time of the adoption of the BOR? Sure.

Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes.

Are they suitable for use by a militia? Sure, just like artillery is today. Note that the entire Army isn't artillery and they *gasp* also carry those personal arms discussed above.

The reasons *why* you see the pro-2nd crowd speaking out against the ever-increasing amount of gun-related laws is aptly summed up here:

Quote

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

*Did* private individuals own cannons (the equivalent of the nukes/missiles/tanks mentioned) at the time of the adoption of the BOR? Sure.

Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes.

Are they suitable for use by a militia? Sure, just like artillery is today. Note that the entire Army isn't artillery and they *gasp* also carry those personal arms discussed above.

The reasons *why* you see the pro-2nd crowd speaking out against the ever-increasing amount of gun-related laws is aptly summed up here:

Quote

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

And before that:
"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

Typical Mike. Always with the snide insults, but never a clearly stated answer to a question. You only "hint" enough to lead to logical inferences, and when people make those inferences you attack them. I do hope the real-world Mike is different than the on-line Mike, otherwise it would be impossible to hold even a simple conversation you.

From your long "analogy" about the cake, I am led to infer that you believe that "cannon" and their modern analogues should be permitted under the 2nd. If I am wrong, I would be curious to hear what you think should be permitted, and what should not.

It really is a simple question. I am not angling for some sort of anti-gun "hook", I recognize and have no argument with the principle that the 2nd protects the right of citizens to keep and bear firearms.

I'm a bit surprised at the defensive nature of the knee-jerk response of some people to the question. It's as if they're afraid that by looking too closely people will discover some great flaw in the pro-gun argument. What I've been asking is how much cake do you think you should be allowed? If you're happy with the slice that has guns on top, fine, say so. If you want the slice with Stinger missiles too, then just say so.

I'll admit that there comes a point where the tension between what may be seen as a right to "keep and bear" on the one hand, and "public safety" on the other hand, becomes extreme. The idea that anybody (who is not a court-identified nutter or a felon) could keep and bear a weapon that could shoot down a passenger jet will be alarming to many. We see that not all guns are used responsibly, yet we judge that the right to bear guns outweighs the risk to the public that they will be misused. Can we make a similar calculation for other arms? Is there any point at which the risk of misuse becomes too much? Not, perhaps, a simple question, but refusing to even consider it head on (as opposed to winks, nods, and cakes) doesn't do service to the question. If people never think about where the limits should be, how will they respond when those limits are cut closer and closer to the bone?

And yes, Coreece, it's just a matter of curiosity about what people believe. It's unfortunate that curiosity doesn't seen to be in your makeup, but I suppose you have lots of company in that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,119]

Quote

Feel free to find a single quote from the Founders that counters the example given of their thinking on the subject.

I'll wait

Yes, because there would be a mountain of documentation regarding the founding father's opinion on personal ownership of Stinger missiles.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Typical Mike. Always with the snide insults, but never a clearly stated answer to a question.

Typical Don - continuing to pursue the same bad argument even when shown that it's a bad argument. How many *MORE* times would you like me to tell you that your argument isn't a very applicable one before it sinks in?

Quote

From your long "analogy" about the cake, I am led to infer that you believe that "cannon" and their modern analogues should be permitted under the 2nd. If I am wrong, I would be curious to hear what you think should be permitted, and what should not.

Lawdog's analogy speaks to ever-increasing laws, not cannons. For that matter, how do you get 'agree with cannons' from 'the reasons why you see pro-2nd folks speaking out against ever-increasing laws', anyway?

Quote

It really is a simple question. I am not angling for some sort of anti-gun "hook", I recognize and have no argument with the principle that the 2nd protects the right of citizens to keep and bear firearms.

No, it's really NOT that simple of a question except in the (extreme) abstract.

Quote

I'm a bit surprised at the defensive nature of the knee-jerk response of some people to the question. It's as if they're afraid that by looking too closely people will discover some great flaw in the pro-gun argument. What I've been asking is how much cake do you think you should be allowed? If you're happy with the slice that has guns on top, fine, say so. If you want the slice with Stinger missiles too, then just say so.

I'm not surprised at all. The reason WHY you get the 'defensive knee-jerk' response is PRECISELY because of the 'gotcha' factor that threads like this engender. Anything that is said gets twisted out of all recognition and used against us.

"Well, you don't have a problem with not having cannons, why do you need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?" And another bite disappears from that sliver of cake.

Quote

I'll admit that there comes a point where the tension between what may be seen as a right to "keep and bear" on the one hand, and "public safety" on the other hand, becomes extreme. The idea that anybody (who is not a court-identified nutter or a felon) could keep and bear a weapon that could shoot down a passenger jet will be alarming to many. We see that not all guns are used responsibly, yet we judge that the right to bear guns outweighs the risk to the public that they will be misused. Can we make a similar calculation for other arms? Is there any point at which the risk of misuse becomes too much? Not, perhaps, a simple question, but refusing to even consider it head on (as opposed to winks, nods, and cakes) doesn't do service to the question.

What are the limits of the law in this fantasy land you're basing your argument on? Do we still have the same criminal activity? Are *all* people free to be armed, or only those approved by the State? What places are they *not* allowed to be armed? Can they be openly armed, or must the weapon be concealed? Police coverage? Self-defense laws?

That's just the tip of the iceberg - *NOW* do you see why I said that it's only an easy question in the extreme abstract, above?

Quote

If people never think about where the limits should be, how will they respond when those limits are cut closer and closer to the bone?

Pete Perazzi and Randy Remington don't / won't give a fuck until fed.gov comes after their bird gun or hunting rifle. Serious gun owners know what the limits used to be and that they've been cut down to the bone already.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Nice try having a discussion. It's obviously pointless around here.

Kinda sad, but not unexpected.

- Dan G

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Nice try having a discussion. It's obviously pointless around here.

Kinda sad, but not unexpected.

Yeah, I'm getting the idea that the answer is: "We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you".

Thanks for playing, y'all that did try to play.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

You might have more luck with a better source of knowledge than 18th century sports journalism.

Feel free to find a single quote from the Founders that counters the example given of their thinking on the subject.

Of sports? I'm not disputing it.

Of the limits of the second amendment? You've provided nothing to counter.

If that letter is evidence of Jefferson's view on the limits of the second amendment then it means he also thought the freedom of the press should only extend to reprinting the greek and latin classics.



Your apparent lack of reading comprehension here is so profound it makes me think your entire posting career has just been a smokescreen, building up a veneer of believability leading into this one great, magnificent troll.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

For that matter, how do you get 'agree with cannons' from 'the reasons why you see pro-2nd folks speaking out against ever-increasing laws', anyway?

Maybe it was because it followed the bit where you said "Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

If "public safety" is not ever acceptable as a reason to limit such rights, why can't a law abiding person hang around an airport with a Stinger missile?

Here's why -

"Hold my beer and watch this."

California man arrested in killing of girlfriend with cannon

As a side note, many cannons are perfectly legal to own in California. Personally, I have access to two, maybe three if I ask nicely. We fire them fairly regularly, often times within full view of law enforcement, who have frequently commented "Cool! Can we fire it too?" There are some folks out here with a Gatling gun too.

Of course, we're a historical re-enactment group, and we're usually shooting blanks...except when we're not.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As a side note, many cannons are perfectly legal to own in California. Personally, I have access to two, maybe three if I ask nicely. We fire them fairly regularly, often times within full view of law enforcement, who have frequently commented "Cool! Can we fire it too?" There are some folks out here with a Gatling gun too.

Mythbusters has constructed enough canons to supply an army, though perhaps that changed after a big screwup last year.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

For that matter, how do you get 'agree with cannons' from 'the reasons why you see pro-2nd folks speaking out against ever-increasing laws', anyway?

Maybe it was because it followed the bit where you said "Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes."

And was separated from 'that bit' by a clear statement about 'this is why pro-2nd folks gripe about the ever-increasing laws'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For that matter, how do you get 'agree with cannons' from 'the reasons why you see pro-2nd folks speaking out against ever-increasing laws', anyway?

Maybe it was because it followed the bit where you said "Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes."

And was separated from 'that bit' by a clear statement about 'this is why pro-2nd folks gripe about the ever-increasing laws'.

Which reads for all the world like it's linking the two together.

Anyway, regardless of whether GD got it from the quote or from the bit you wrote yourself, you cl;early stated in that post that cannons are covered by the second amendment.

So which is it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

For that matter, how do you get 'agree with cannons' from 'the reasons why you see pro-2nd folks speaking out against ever-increasing laws', anyway?

Maybe it was because it followed the bit where you said "Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes."

And was separated from 'that bit' by a clear statement about 'this is why pro-2nd folks gripe about the ever-increasing laws'.

Which reads for all the world like it's linking the two together.

Anyway, regardless of whether GD got it from the quote or from the bit you wrote yourself, you cl;early stated in that post that cannons are covered by the second amendment.

So which is it?

I never said cannons weren't covered. Maybe you should spend more time attempting to understand the material and less time attempting to 'link them together'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

For that matter, how do you get 'agree with cannons' from 'the reasons why you see pro-2nd folks speaking out against ever-increasing laws', anyway?

Because you wrote:
"*Did* private individuals own cannons (the equivalent of the nukes/missiles/tanks mentioned) at the time of the adoption of the BOR? Sure.

Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes.

Are they suitable for use by a militia? Sure, just like artillery is today. Note that the entire Army isn't artillery and they *gasp* also carry those personal arms discussed above."

If that doesn't mean 'agree with cannons' this discussion is pointless (which it probably is anyway) because you and I are not speaking the same language. Superficially the words look and are spelled the same, but apparently they mean completely different things.

Quote

Typical Don - continuing to pursue the same bad argument even when shown that it's a bad argument. How many *MORE* times would you like me to tell you that your argument isn't a very applicable one before it sinks in?

Except it isn't an argument, it is just a question. You are the one making it an argument.

Quote

No, it's really NOT that simple of a question except in the (extreme) abstract.

What are the limits of the law in this fantasy land you're basing your argument on? Do we still have the same criminal activity? Are *all* people free to be armed, or only those approved by the State? What places are they *not* allowed to be armed? Can they be openly armed, or must the weapon be concealed? Police coverage? Self-defense laws?

Sure, it's an abstract question, but it's not that complicated. I'm not into hidden "tricks" with the questions I pose. I stated several times the question applies to everybody who is currently covered under the 2nd; that is, everybody who is not a court-certified nutter or a felon. There are no hidden assumptions about "approval by the state". It would be difficult to conceal a Stinger. You're looking for a trap where there is none.

Quote

Lawdog's analogy speaks to ever-increasing laws, not cannons.

In which case it's a red herring, as I have never suggested more restrictions. I have only asked if people believe the existing restrictions on present day 'cannon' equivalents is reasonable or constitutional. That such a question is seen as proposing further restrictions only reflects paranoia on the part of some. If you think the question too dangerous to even discuss, you don't have to discuss it. Though I have to wonder what it really is in the question that people are afraid of?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Sure, it's an abstract question, but it's not that complicated. I'm not into hidden "tricks" with the questions I pose. I stated several times the question applies to everybody who is currently covered under the 2nd; that is, everybody who is not a court-certified nutter or a felon. There are no hidden assumptions about "approval by the state". It would be difficult to conceal a Stinger. You're looking for a trap where there is none.

There's traps there that you don't even know ARE there. To get the stingers 'legal' in the first place would involve overturning a myriad of gun laws, INCLUDING ones that currently prohibit the felons and nutters from having guns.

Quote

In which case it's a red herring, as I have never suggested more restrictions. I have only asked if people believe the existing restrictions on present day 'cannon' equivalents is reasonable or constitutional.

I didn't say that you *had* proposed further restrictions.

Quote

That such a question is seen as proposing further restrictions only reflects paranoia on the part of some.

Who said the question was proposing further restrictions?

Quote

If you think the question too dangerous to even discuss, you don't have to discuss it.

Dangerous? No. Silly? Yup, that it is.

Quote

Though I have to wonder what it really is in the question that people are afraid of?

Don

Afraid of the question? No. Afraid of how other people will twist the responses? (cannons/laws, anyone?) Yup.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,119]

Quote

Silly? Yup, that it is.

It's silly to discuss less restrictions on arms?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I never said cannons weren't covered.

"Because missiles, tanks and nukes are not personal arms.....

Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon."


So my question would be then Mike... why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place? What exactly is the missing link in this massive non-sequitur of Jefferson's letter about sports?

Y'know what? Don't even bother answering. We all know this is just the first step in the whole tired and ridiculous dance of disowning the comments you've just spent 3 pages defending and claiming you actually never held that position at all and were speaking about something quite different and can't for the life of you think why no-one realised you'd changed the subject even though you never gave any indication you were talking about something different.

Quote

Maybe you should spend more time attempting to understand the material and less time attempting to 'link them together'.

I think you've lost the plot there Mike. You're the guy claiming that a letter on sports and recreation is linked to the meaning of the second amendment. Everyone else is telling you how stupid that is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So my question would be then Mike... why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place? What exactly is the missing link in this massive non-sequitur of Jefferson's letter about sports?

I would say 'think application instead of theory', but since you *still* haven't figured it out, it's likely you never will.

Quote

I think you've lost the plot there Mike. You're the guy claiming that a letter on sports and recreation is linked to the meaning of the second amendment.

And we've got you and Don, who seem to think that it's no problem dragging a cannon along for your afternoon walks

Quote

Everyone else is telling you how stupid that is.

Actually, that would be the rest of us telling you two how silly it is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I would say 'think application instead of theory', but since you *still* haven't figured it out, it's likely you never will.

In other words... you don't know. You've tied yourself in knots trying to a) say that the use of the word gun instead of cannon means that non personal arms are not covered by the 2nd, while b) arguing that cannons are covered by the second. It's absolute nonsense which you have no way of defending.

Just be aware that it's not lost on anyone that you are unable to make any cogent defence of your self-contradiction, and are trying to cover your tracks with insults.

Quote

And we've got you and Don, who seem to think that it's no problem dragging a cannon along for your afternoon walks

Again Mike, you've totally lost the plot. Myself and Don realise that you can't carry a cannon with you, and that is why it wasn't recommended. Since you believe the reason it wasn't mentioned is because only personal arms are covered by the constitution, then you it would otherwise have been perfectly possible.

Why don't you give it a go and tell us how it went?

Quote

Actually, that would be the rest of us telling you two how silly it is.

Take another look, dude. Who has taken your side over Jefferson's letter? Who has told you how ridiculous you're being?

Your second assignment: Count them, and report back with the ratio.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I would say 'think application instead of theory', but since you *still* haven't figured it out, it's likely you never will.

In other words... you don't know.

Wrong again.

Quote

You've tied yourself in knots trying to a) say that the use of the word gun instead of cannon means that non personal arms are not covered by the 2nd

Guess that's I said "If you can carry (bear) one around, go for it" in post 22 in reference to *gasp* a cannon.

Wrong again.

Quote

while b) arguing that cannons are covered by the second. It's absolute nonsense which you have no way of defending.

Your inability to comprehend is YOUR issue, not mine.

Quote

Since you believe the reason it wasn't mentioned is because only personal arms are covered by the constitution, then you it would otherwise have been perfectly possible.

Wrong again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would say 'think application instead of theory', but since you *still* haven't figured it out, it's likely you never will.

In other words... you don't know.

Wrong again.

Since that's still not an explanation, in other words, you don't know.

Quote

Guess that's I said "If you can carry (bear) one around, go for it" in post 22 in reference to *gasp* a cannon.

Ok then, a) that has nothing to do with Jefferson's letter. You don't need to reference Jefferson's letter to show that it is not possible to carry a cannon, so why the fuck did you bring it up?

And b) So you think cannons aren't covered by the second amendment because you can't pick them up. Brings us neatly to...

Quote

Quote

while b) arguing that cannons are covered by the second. It's absolute nonsense which you have no way of defending.

Your inability to comprehend is YOUR issue, not mine.

So you think that cannons are covered by the second amendment. Why? Can you pick them up, or does it not matter that it isn't an individual weapon?

I haven't read nonsense this well constructed since Lewis Carroll. This is why everyone is telling you that you are wrong, and you are the only person defending this ridiculous argument.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?