2 2
yoink

Walmart shooting - El Paso

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Do you believe the second amendment, as you interpret it, would protect your right to buy and own guns that were undetectable by current technology and had no ballistic signature?

Yes of course, obviously yes.  When I read the Second Amendment I don’t see “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it were undetectable by current technology and has no ballistic signature.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes of course, obviously yes.  When I read the Second Amendment I don’t see “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it were undetectable by current technology and has no ballistic signature.”

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And, well yes obviously I suppose, you also see the last 14 words as being completely disconnected from the preceding 13? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Yes you are correct, the Second Amendment has nothing to say about biometrics and the types of arms used.  It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it is a semi auto with a thirty round detachable magazine lacking biometric safeguards.  You are correct sir.

Neither does it say you have the right to own fully automatic 5.56 assault rifles. Or nuclear devices.

 

So let’s assume it means what it’s talking about in the period it was written.

You are completely free to keep and bear muskets. As many as you like.

 

Glad we agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JoeWeber said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And, well yes obviously I suppose, you also see the last 14 words as being completely disconnected from the preceding 13? 

Obviously you have no clue what the first 13 words are referring to 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are many ways in which the rights of people in the USA to bear arms are infringed currently. It is a moving line, it has moved before and it will move again.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
24 minutes ago, yoink said:

Neither does it say you have the right to own fully automatic 5.56 assault rifles. Or nuclear devices.

 

So let’s assume it means what it’s talking about in the period it was written.

You are completely free to keep and bear muskets. As many as you like.

 

Glad we agree. 

Or battleships that could be had by any citizen with the means.  I’m afraid that I must disagree with you, that anyone may possess the most devastating killing machines of their era.  

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Obviously you have no clue what the first 13 words are referring to 

Nor do you. Heller is when "militia" and "keep and bear arms" lost a military meaning and suddenly any 3 nitwits with guns who anyone might claim were available to serve were now mopped in and approved to own and use any weapons left over from the latest The Men in Black. The weird thing is you really believe that owning ray guns and vaporizers is your constitutional right. The reality is that it's just the latest interpretation of an amendment that was written for a long ago time, not today.

But you read only: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, fucking period, fucking ever, fuck you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, yoink said:

Neither does it say you have the right to own fully automatic 5.56 assault rifles. Or nuclear devices.

 

So let’s assume it means what it’s talking about in the period it was written.

You are completely free to keep and bear muskets. As many as you like.

 

Glad we agree. 

So does freedom of the press only apply to newspapers & pamphlets printed on movable type?

Does freedom from search and seizure not apply to computers or smart phones?

Or telephones at all for that matter?

Do any of our constitutional protections only apply to the technology of 1776?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nor do you. Heller is when "militia" and "keep and bear arms" lost a military meaning and suddenly any 3 nitwits with guns who anyone might claim were available to serve were now mopped in and approved to own and use any weapons left over from the latest The Men in Black. The weird thing is you really believe that owning ray guns and vaporizers is your constitutional right. The reality is that it's just the latest interpretation of an amendment that was written for a long ago time, not today.

But you read only: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, fucking period, fucking ever, fuck you."

So you agree that Heller is the law of the land.  Good, we are making progress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

So you agree that Heller is the law of the land.  Good, we are making progress!

That's a glib and silly comment. Understanding it is the law now is not to say I agree that it is a good decision. In fact, I'd say it was asinine like Dred Scott, Plessy, Citizens United and more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nor do you. Heller is when "militia" and "keep and bear arms" lost a military meaning and suddenly any 3 nitwits with guns who anyone might claim were available to serve were now mopped in and approved to own and use any weapons left over from the latest The Men in Black. The weird thing is you really believe that owning ray guns and vaporizers is your constitutional right. The reality is that it's just the latest interpretation of an amendment that was written for a long ago time, not today.

But you read only: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, fucking period, fucking ever, fuck you."

That just shows that you lack the fundamental understanding of the second amendment.  Sober up, get some sleep and hope that the moderators continue their leftist bias 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

That just shows that you lack the fundamental understanding of the second amendment.  Sober up, get some sleep and hope that the moderators continue their leftist bias 

There was no personal attack in that. That is simply what comes across when you claim that the second amendment conveys an individual right to own any weapon of any type, and apparently, for any purpose.  The implication of that is that any negative impact on others be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
26 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So does freedom of the press only apply to newspapers & pamphlets printed on movable type?

Does freedom from search and seizure not apply to computers or smart phones?

Or telephones at all for that matter?

Do any of our constitutional protections only apply to the technology of 1776?

It's a really good question, and why we have a SC. I've long thought that that idea of having what has basically become an immutable document defining the laws of the land is daft. It should be brought up to relevance for the modern era, because with the best will in the world the Founding Fathers weren't clairvoyant. 

 

This thread is about guns though, so I'll use that as the basis for my position.

 

I hope you'd agree that the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear nuclear arms at home. It would be ridiculous and dangerous. So that sets a precedent - the 2nd, as written, is not intended to freely cover all possible future technologies. We limit availability to those technologies for the good of society and so there are 'arms' that are outside the scope of the 2nd amendment. 

The bit that frustrates me is that we can't say that the 2nd limits availability to these arms, but not those ones!! You can't have it both ways. It's not written that way. 

It either grants complete freedom or it inherently expects some limitations. As the second position brent's argument of 'you've never heard of the the 2nd' thinking it gives him complete freedom to bear whatever arms he likes becomes thoughtless nonsense.

 

 

Edit: There are two many '2nds' in that last paragraph, but I'm tired. Hopefully it's clear.

 

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 minutes ago, yoink said:

It's a really good question, and why we have a SC. I've long thought that that idea of having what has basically become an immutable document defining the laws of the land is daft. It should be brought up to relevance for the modern era, because with the best will in the world the Founding Fathers weren't clairvoyant. 

 

This thread is about guns though, so I'll use that as the basis for my position.

 

I hope you'd agree that the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear nuclear arms at home. It would be ridiculous and dangerous. So that sets a precedent - the 2nd, as written, is not intended to freely cover all possible future technologies. We limit availability to those technologies for the good of society and so there are 'arms' that are outside the scope of the 2nd amendment. 

The bit that frustrates me is that we can't say that the 2nd limits availability to these arms, but not those ones!! You can't have it both ways. It's not written that way. 

It either grants complete freedom or it inherently expects some limitations. As the second position brent's argument of 'you've never heard of the the 2nd' thinking it gives him complete freedom to bear whatever arms he likes becomes thoughtless nonsense.

 

 

Edit: There are two many '2nds' in that last paragraph, but I'm tired. Hopefully it's clear.

 

The second amendment was not about hunting, or personal protection, it was explicitly about the ability of a populace to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government by what ever means necessary without regard to the weapons DuJour.

Edited by brenthutch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Thank you for your clarification, however it is difficult to interpret “fuck you” as anything other then a personal attack.

He was not saying that to you. He was accusing you of saying that to others, metaphorically. It's tough to communicate here sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The second amendment was not about hunting, or personal protection, it was explicitly about the ability of a populace to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government by what ever means necessary without regard to the weapons DuJour.

I'm not sure what you mean by DuJour. Please provide a link.

The 2nd as written says nothing about overthrowing anything. 

 

And you deliberately ignored my point. Do you think the 2nd grants you the RIGHT to bear nuclear arms?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Just in time to put some context in here. NPR story about how the USA compares to other nations. Apparently your killing machine success rate is on a par with some, but not all "shithole countries". And about ten times that of Canada, even though we just has a bad weekend in Toronto.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yoink said:

I'm not sure what you mean by DuJour. Please provide a link.

The 2nd as written says nothing about overthrowing anything. 

 

And you deliberately ignored my point. Do you think the 2nd grants you the RIGHT to bear nuclear arms?

 

No need for a link, DuJour means “of the day” 

Please read Federalist #46 and get back to me

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes of course, obviously yes.  When I read the Second Amendment I don’t see “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it were undetectable by current technology and has no ballistic signature.”

 

So you Support the rights of Islamic American Citizens who believe that ‘under God’ they have a duty to stand up to a tyrannical government? As I listen to many of you second amendment hard core advocates I can’t separate you from the fundamentalists.

They are using ‘arms’ in precisely the way you advocate. The fact your view of tyranny is different to theirs is like arguing that chocolate ice cream isn’t ice cream, because it isn’t vanilla ice cream.

Put another way, are you strongly opposed to antiterrorism laws that infringe your (and their) rights? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

So you Support the rights of Islamic American Citizens who believe that ‘under God’ they have a duty to stand up to a tyrannical government? As I listen to many of you second amendment hard core advocates I can’t separate you from the fundamentalists.

They are using ‘arms’ in precisely the way you advocate. The fact your view of tyranny is different to theirs is like arguing that chocolate ice cream isn’t ice cream, because it isn’t vanilla ice cream.

Put another way, are you strongly opposed to antiterrorism laws that infringe your (and their) rights? 

Well, it is a religion and that's the problem. Brent will claim a constitutional right to shoot his bazooka at crows because he fears giving an inch. Disagree and he'll give you homework. If he asks for data he ignores it. He's really no different from Ron in that he is fully invested in his belief system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nigel99 said:

So you Support the rights of Islamic American Citizens who believe that ‘under God’ they have a duty to stand up to a tyrannical government? As I listen to many of you second amendment hard core advocates I can’t separate you from the fundamentalists.

They are using ‘arms’ in precisely the way you advocate. The fact your view of tyranny is different to theirs is like arguing that chocolate ice cream isn’t ice cream, because it isn’t vanilla ice cream.

Put another way, are you strongly opposed to antiterrorism laws that infringe your (and their) rights? 

No, it is a basic matter of the freedom of the individual vs the tyranny (potential or actual) of the collective.  In that regard Islamic fundamentalists are no different than socialists, communists or fascists.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes of course, obviously yes.  When I read the Second Amendment I don’t see “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it were undetectable by current technology and has no ballistic signature.”

 

Perhaps you should read, carefully, the SCOTUS decison (written by Scalia) in the Heller case.

It makes it very clear that prohibitions on certain types of firearms, and on ownership by certain classes of people, and in certain locations, are quite constitutional.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Obviously you have no clue what the first 13 words are referring to 

The way I see it, that well regulated militia is currently detrimental to the security of the state. Hence, if the opening statement is wrong, the rest should be disregarded.

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.

2 2