0
GeorgiaDon

2nd Amendment Limit Question

Recommended Posts

Quote

Pulllease..... It's all about intellectual masturbation by antipro-gun nuts. The 2nd amend ain't going anywhere. Do you understand those small words?



it was only upheld by a 5-4 vote. And this was to fix rather black and white circumstances where the 2nd Amendment was non existent. Change one vote and where would we be? (hopefully forcing a constitutional convention to fix the matter once and for all)

Forgive us if we ignore the words of gun haters who piled on legislation in the 90s when the political winds permitted. (Thanks to you, we got Bush in 2000)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

(Thanks to you, we got Bush in 2000)



I don't know if you're saying that like it's a good thing or a bad thing. ;)

In any case, used to be Social Security was the third rail of politics, now it's guns. People talk about how much power Grover has, but people have given Wayne WAY too much power. Between the two of them . . . holy shit . . . what ever happened to democracy?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


In any case, used to be Social Security was the third rail of politics, now it's guns. People talk about how much power Grover has, but people have given Wayne WAY too much power. Between the two of them . . . holy shit . . . what ever happened to democracy?



in what way does the President of the NRA have power?

He represents directly a few million citizens, and indirectly a few tens of millions of citizens, who believe in rights backed by the Bill of Rights. When dirtbags try to subvert these rights, why shouldn't he remind them that his membership will remember such unAmerican activities in the next election?

This is in great contrast to the tobacco lobby, or Big Oil, who represent few but very profitable companies. The NRA is not swimming in money - Soros alone can stake more to the other side (and seems to frequently). It's is not a huge industry - a few billion in annual sales is strictly niche market - #100 on the Fortune 100 did 25B in revenues last year. No, the NRA (or GOA, or SAS) must fight with righteousness and votes. It cannot do it with money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


In any case, used to be Social Security was the third rail of politics, now it's guns. People talk about how much power Grover has, but people have given Wayne WAY too much power. Between the two of them . . . holy shit . . . what ever happened to democracy?



in what way does the President of the NRA have power?



You're joking; right?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the reference to the need for a militia to keep a state free just explains the overarching importance of the amendment. Keep in mind that these guys just waged eight years of war against an unjust government. They understood that the people had to be able to start over by force if necessary.

I think the original intent was for every man to have the means at his disposal to wage war against an unjust government if needed.

Try to argue that a legislature that had a little fear of violence from the people wouldn't pay close attention to their work.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


In any case, used to be Social Security was the third rail of politics, now it's guns. People talk about how much power Grover has, but people have given Wayne WAY too much power. Between the two of them . . . holy shit . . . what ever happened to democracy?



in what way does the President of the NRA have power?



You're joking; right?



I was looking for an illustration of him having too much power. Are you going to show a example, or was this just hot air again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In any case, used to be Social Security was the third rail of politics, now it's guns. People talk about how much power Grover has, but people have given Wayne WAY too much power. Between the two of them . . . holy shit . . . what ever happened to democracy?



Are you suggesting that like-minded people shouldn't be allowed to organize together and voice their opinions?

Does the phrase "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" sound familiar?

The NRA is respected by politicians not because of the size of their membership or the size of their bank account, but because their members vote.

If you don't like that state of affairs, get enough of your own like-minded people to out-vote the NRA folks. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did you expect anti-gun believers to be anything other than purposefully obtuse, narrow minded and shallow in any gun discussion? That the subject has been hashed over many times before must be lost on them. Back in the day, those types were classified as *sore losers.* Let them sulk and pout. Unless some future court case rescinds the 2nd Amendment, the pro gun faction today remains the winner.

Thanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand:

No one say guns bad.
Only ask why not really big guns OK?

To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion.

Don




Pulllease..... It's all about intellectual masturbation by anti-gun nuts. The 2nd amend ain't going anywhere. Do you understand those small words?

Hey look! aarco's less coherent twin is back.

Odd that you're so defensive about the 2nd that you get your panties in a wad if someone just asks a straightforward question. Worried that it'll crumble into dust and blow away if someone shines a bit of light on it? I'm not, it's survived over 200 years and I'm sure it can withstand a little curious inquiry.

Don




Not worried about anything..... Especially the 2nd amend. Shine all the light you want. Perhaps someone will be able to understand what point you are trying to make. And... stuff the PA in your ear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The REASON is the militia. People on the pro-gun side keeping bringing up the militia so clearly that MUST be the reason.



Yes, but the militia is *any individual* willing to fight for the Constitution.

So a full auto M16 is more protected than a duck shotgun according to the 2nd Amendment.

But to say it is JUST the militia is ignoring Blackstone and his writings which the Founding Fathers read and agreed with. See, Blackstone wrote that self defense is a given and back during the revolution it was just flat out understood that a person had the right to hunt for food, or defend himself or his family. Back then, there was no reason to mention hunting and self defense..... They were understood.

BUT, they just had to overthrow a govt. They knew that an armed populace could defend the liberty they were fighting for.... the 2nd is about being able to fight and designed to prevent the Govt from removing that ability.

Anti gunners would have a much more logical position if they tried to claim the 2nd does not protect duck hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's obvious you've never understood no other part of the Constitution written in that time period requires linguistic gymnastics to be "properly" understood. No other part of the Constitution written in that time period requires some sort of prior knowledge and support documents not found in the Constitution itself, yet, for some reason, if you "really" want to understand what the Second Amendment was about, oh, you have to read this or that specific part of the Federalist Papers which support it while completely ignoring the dissenting opinions found in other parts of the Federalist Papers.

Why is that?



Please show a single quote from the Founders that were against private gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The REASON is the militia. People on the pro-gun side keeping bringing up the militia so clearly that MUST be the reason.



Yes, but the militia is *any individual* willing to fight for the Constitution.



No. It's not. Nice try but that's not supported by any legal definition of the term now or at the time of the founding of the country.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, I believe people should be able to own *any* arms they can afford. But also being a good liberal, I think that the cool toys shouldn't be limited to rich people like Bill Gates. These things are a constitutional right, IMO, so I would advocate some sort of welfare program for people that can't afford them. Why should only corporate CEOs enjoy the rush of firing a stinger missile? Or the joy of chucking a tear-gas grenade at the neighbor's barking dog? Why, all red-blooded Americans need to be able to enjoy the explosive thrill of 4th of July on each and every day, and with actual human casualty!

Now, to accomplish this goal, I propose a progressive flat subsidy, based on income level, to purchase older military technology that the U.S. isn't going to use, anyway. It would be a win-win, because the government would subsidize poor people, who would just give money back to the government! So if a 50-cal machine gun costs $4,000, and we give a $3,500 subsidy to someone that lives in a bad neighborhood, then the government gets an extra $500 to help pay the deficit down. As a bonus, a lot of free-loading poor people in those poor neighborhoods will be eliminated. Imagine how many poor people can be down-sized if we give just fully-automatic large-bore weapons out in those areas!

But I am not a proponent of subsidizing thermonuclear weapons for poor people. They should only be allowed small-scale nukes. There's no point in having them take out an entire city, but if they take it back home and just blow up the poor sections, it would be better for the rest of us. The rich people, who can afford thermo-nukes aren't likely to use them, because they're rich and want to keep the status quo (except for the poor - everyone wants to get rid of the poor).
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But I am not a proponent of subsidizing thermonuclear weapons
>for poor people. They should only be allowed small-scale nukes.

Exactly. Letting people own thermonuclear weapons would be ridiculous, especially when there are safer alternatives available. And limiting WMD subsidies to basic nuclear and chemical weapons would allow collectors the freedom to collect and detonate a wide variety of historically accurate weapons, from Sarin dispensing systems to basic nuclear weapons. What collector wouldn't want a Fat Boy in his collection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because all the weapons you named are not used for defensive purposes.



A Stinger missile is defensive if you're being attacked by a helicopter.

Hint, repressive governments and invading nations tend to be well equipped in the rotary wing department. Your's definitely is.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Because missiles, tanks and nukes are not personal arms.



My copy of the constitution must be faulty. It doesn't have the word "personal" between the words "bear" and "arms". I'll contact the printer immediately.



A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.



Mega.

Is it also your assertion that arms are only constitutionally permitted for sporting purposes (and football is actually illegal), because that's what Jefferson is talking about in this completely-unrelated-to-the-constitution personal letter?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.



Your Jefferson quote has absolutely nothig to do with the 2nd Amendment.



It has plenty to do with the point of view of the framers of the document.



Yes, their point of view on how best to exercise if you don't like playing ball.

I wish I'd read this thread earlier, even for you this is outstanding trollmanship.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey look, I go out of town for a few days, and come back too discover this thread is still alive!

Quote

Yes, but the militia is *any individual* willing to fight for the Constitution.

So a full auto M16 is more protected than a duck shotgun according to the 2nd Amendment.

But to say it is JUST the militia is ignoring Blackstone and his writings which the Founding Fathers read and agreed with. See, Blackstone wrote that self defense is a given and back during the revolution it was just flat out understood that a person had the right to hunt for food, or defend himself or his family. Back then, there was no reason to mention hunting and self defense..... They were understood.

BUT, they just had to overthrow a govt. They knew that an armed populace could defend the liberty they were fighting for.... the 2nd is about being able to fight and designed to prevent the Govt from removing that ability.



Also from davjohns:
Quote

I think the reference to the need for a militia to keep a state free just explains the overarching importance of the amendment. Keep in mind that these guys just waged eight years of war against an unjust government. They understood that the people had to be able to start over by force if necessary.

I think the original intent was for every man to have the means at his disposal to wage war against an unjust government if needed.

Try to argue that a legislature that had a little fear of violence from the people wouldn't pay close attention to their work.



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.

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.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But I am not a proponent of subsidizing thermonuclear weapons for poor people. They should only be allowed small-scale nukes. There's no point in having them take out an entire city, but if they take it back home and just blow up the poor sections, it would be better for the rest of us.

Would that be considered "urban renewal"? From slum to the latest "hot spot" in a few milliseconds! Come party where Geiger counters aren't just a fashion accessory, they're a necessity.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0