djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 11:41:38 GMT -5
Lots of things that are "bad ideas" are legal... and SHOULD be. Lots of things that are "bad ideas" are illegal... and SHOULDN'T be. It's called freedom and/or liberty. safety and freedom are generally in conflict. you want to be safe? you will give up some freedom, then. but that doesn't mean that you should do things to intentionally make your life and the lives of others unsafe, just because you have that liberty. any of us can drive our cars 100MPH down the wrong side of the freeway, until we are caught. we have the liberty to do that. but it is not legal. that is also true with shoulder mounted grenade launchers. they are illegal for civilians for a reason. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 18:46:22 GMT -5
Yes, Owning a WMD should be illegal, and is perfectly allowable to BE illegal... because it's not "arms". no, it is illegal for many reasons. none of which have to do with the definition of arms. I was referring to it's constitutionally allowable status to be illegal. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 18:48:03 GMT -5
Lots of things that are "bad ideas" are legal... and SHOULD be. Lots of things that are "bad ideas" are illegal... and SHOULDN'T be. It's called freedom and/or liberty. safety and freedom are generally in conflict. you want to be safe? you will give up some freedom, then. but that doesn't mean that you should do things to intentionally make your life and the lives of others unsafe, just because you have that liberty. any of us can drive our cars 100MPH down the wrong side of the freeway, until we are caught. we have the liberty to do that. but it is not legal. that is also true with shoulder mounted grenade launchers. they are illegal for civilians for a reason. Benjamin Franklin |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 19:19:37 GMT -5
no, it is illegal for many reasons. none of which have to do with the definition of arms. I was referring to it's constitutionally allowable status to be illegal. again, i see nothing in the constitution that disallows it. do you? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 19:21:02 GMT -5
safety and freedom are generally in conflict. you want to be safe? you will give up some freedom, then. but that doesn't mean that you should do things to intentionally make your life and the lives of others unsafe, just because you have that liberty. any of us can drive our cars 100MPH down the wrong side of the freeway, until we are caught. we have the liberty to do that. but it is not legal. that is also true with shoulder mounted grenade launchers. they are illegal for civilians for a reason. Benjamin Franklin i don't believe that is the quote. i believe that Franklin said "give up ESSENTIAL liberty for a little security", but go ahead. check me.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 19:43:58 GMT -5
I was referring to it's constitutionally allowable status to be illegal. again, i see nothing in the constitution that disallows it. do you? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A "launcher" is classified as "arms", a WMD is classified as a "device" NOT "arms". Why is that such a difficult concept? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 19:56:15 GMT -5
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin i don't believe that is the quote. i believe that Franklin said "give up ESSENTIAL liberty for a little security", but go ahead. check me. There are probably a dozen variations attributed to him... since no one back then had a recording device of any independently verifiable nature (like we have today, where everyone can look at and/or hear someone say something themselves), I think the general "Feel" of what he said applies... regardless of the exactness of the wording of the quote. For the record, I didn't type the quote... I C&P'd it from a quote site. Even if yours is the "one true and correct one", it's still essentially the same. If you give up liberty for security... you deserve (and will probably have) neither. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 21:09:21 GMT -5
i don't believe that is the quote. i believe that Franklin said "give up ESSENTIAL liberty for a little security", but go ahead. check me. There are probably a dozen variations attributed to him... since no one back then had a recording device of any independently verifiable nature (like we have today, where everyone can look at and/or hear someone say something themselves), I think the general "Feel" of what he said applies... regardless of the exactness of the wording of the quote. For the record, I didn't type the quote... I C&P'd it from a quote site. Even if yours is the "one true and correct one", it's still essentially the same. If you give up liberty for security... you deserve (and will probably have) neither. i guess. i think the quote is more powerful if you assume that someone is giving up something big for something small, but suit yourself. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 21:15:04 GMT -5
again, i see nothing in the constitution that disallows it. do you? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A "launcher" is classified as "arms", a WMD is classified as a "device" NOT "arms". Why is that such a difficult concept? i have already stated that i don't agree with your distinction. why is that such a difficult concept? arms = weapons. they are synonyms. at least according to the dictionary. i can be armed with a knife, a grenade, a handgun, or a WMD. all the same. the fact that they only had small arms and cannons in 1787 is immaterial. the nature of weapons changed over time. if you disagree, please cite your source that makes the distinction that you are making. i will consider it. but since i have never heard this distinction before, i am not just taking your word for it. until then, THIS is what i get when i look up "arms": arms ärmz/ noun plural noun: arms 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "they were subjugated by force of arms" synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions WMD are clearly weapons. therefore they are clearly arms. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 22:12:58 GMT -5
WMD are DEVICES therefore they clearly are NOT arms.
The difference is the delivery system "Arms" are the delivery system. The DEVICE is what's delivered BY the "Arms"
If you have a cannon or turret (think of what a Battleship can fire! that's one big cannon!) that can fire a TNW... the CANNON is the ARMS, and the TNW is the DEVICE (or ordnance, if you prefer, the specific military term).
I'll admit that I can't find the true distinction, currently, on-line (too many irrelevant results when searching difference between "arms" and "devices/weapons")... but I did research this as part of my prep for going into the Air Force back in the mid 80's, where my MOS was going to be "Small Arms Specialist" (got "entry level separated" during Basic... that's why the "was going to be"). Part (small part, but still part) of my job was going to be knowing/teaching the difference.
As far as your "arms = weapons" point... I'd just like to point out that Squares = Rectangles... but Rectangles =/= Squares. In this case "arms" are equivalent to "squares".
I'm not saying it again after this. So accept the difference or not. Completely up to you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 26, 2014 23:54:47 GMT -5
WMD are DEVICES therefore they clearly are NOT arms. weapons of mass destruction are weapons.
arms and weapons are synonymous.
therefore, weapons of mass destruction are arms.
The difference is the delivery system "Arms" are the delivery system. The DEVICE is what's delivered BY the "Arms" you keep saying that. i heard you the last three times. i have asked you to show me where you got this information, other than your mind. thusfar, you have failed to do so.If you have a cannon or turret (think of what a Battleship can fire! that's one big cannon!) that can fire a TNW... the CANNON is the ARMS, and the TNW is the DEVICE (or ordnance, if you prefer, the specific military term). I'll admit that I can't find the true distinction, currently, on-line you should also take a moment and admit that the distinction you are claiming is not bourne out by the definition. i would also add that i looked this word up at least FOUR different places, and every time, i got the same result (that weapons and arms are synonyms).(too many irrelevant results when searching difference between "arms" and "devices/weapons")... but I did research this as part of my prep for going into the Air Force back in the mid 80's, where my MOS was going to be "Small Arms Specialist" small arms are guns. that is a subset of arms that i agree with. but, as you will note, the 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear Small Arms". it just says Arms. it does so to be as broad as possible, imo. which, according to the logic of the NRA, gives me the right to bear hand grenades and mustard gas, imo. i will leave it to others to follow the logical extension of why i am making this point. it should be abundantly obvious. the point is usually made sarcastically. but i am not being the least bit sarcastic.(got "entry level separated" during Basic... that's why the "was going to be"). Part (small part, but still part) of my job was going to be knowing/teaching the difference. that's great. just keep looking and let me know when you find it. until then, forgive me for questioning your teaching, professor.
oh, and please stop making it seem like i don't understand what you are TRYING to say. i do. you are trying to say that grenades, mustard gas, and tasers are not "arms"- that they are "weapons". i heard you. and you heard me: that this is a distinction without difference. i have given you the dictionary. you have given me .... grief?
As far as your "arms = weapons" point... I'd just like to point out that Squares = Rectangles... but Rectangles =/= Squares. In this case "arms" are equivalent to "squares". no, i think we are misunderstanding each other. i am not claiming that weapons are a subset of arms or a superset of them, in the sense that squares are a subset of rectangles. i am saying that they are the same, in THIS sense:
all three sided polygons are triangles.
I'm not saying it again after this. So accept the difference or not. Completely up to you. i won't accept any public fact that has no evidence whatsoever. but providing evidence for YOUR point is up to you, not me. if you fail to do so, then the only thing i accept is that you have a private meaning for a word that has no public basis. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 27, 2014 0:29:28 GMT -5
... "Arms" are the delivery system. The DEVICE is what's delivered BY the "Arms" ... "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." Therefore it is unconstitutional to ban guns i.e. the delivery system but not to ban all forms of ammunition i.e. the devices being delivered. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2014 0:51:32 GMT -5
... "Arms" are the delivery system. The DEVICE is what's delivered BY the "Arms" ... "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." Therefore it is unconstitutional to ban guns i.e. the delivery system but not to ban all forms of ammunition i.e. the devices being delivered. i would argue that this issue is so muddled that it has earned a serious debate. if arms are both the delivery device AND the delivered device, then what does "small arms" mean? nobody that i know of thinks it means "bullets". if arms are ONLY the delivery device, then as you say, there is no law protecting bullets, only the delivery device. but what good is that? no, i prefer to think that this amendment is designed specifically to prevent the accumulation of large standing armies. it does so in the manner of Switzerland- by insisting that it's citizens act as a free army- that they pay for and train themselves to use weapons. and that this, and only this, will prevent the tyranny from the state as well as from neighboring states. and all of that is totally true. however, Wilson kinda ended this debate for us. we have standing armies. so now, what the NRA does is attempts to redefine the 2nd amendment to be some sort of protection against tyranny when the government has long range artillery, mustard gas, grenades, and nukes and we don't. what do you think would happen if a rebellion broke out? the kind that arsehat in MS seems to think is coming? have you ever seen a bunch of guys with peashooters go up against a Murray M1A1? it is f(*king hilarious. the Murray can take out as many as they come. it will take out thousands upon thousands of people armed with crappy little toys (by comparison). how about taking on a fighter jet with a pea shooter? good luck. no, people- we are f*&ked. our government has owned us for a century- but we keep acting like we are free. hilarious. they will rip off our small arms and beat us to death with them, given the chance. do i think that will happen? no. but there is nothing- no weapon- no bullet that will defend against it. none. this whole argument is for nothing. we lost it a century ago. we just like pretending that we won it. the 2nd Amendment is AWOL. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2014 0:55:40 GMT -5
the NRA knows this, btw. they ceased being a protector of these US a century ago as well. they are now the PR department for the gun industry. they sell guns to sportsmen (and protect them from infringement). sure. but they stoke this idea that guns make us free (from the tyranny of uncle sugar) all the time, as well, and it is rubbish. guns make us think we are free, but they are sugar pills. expensive ones, at that. if you love the constitution, if you love the 2nd Amendment, disban the Army. or, as Jefferson once put it: "There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323 "I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334 "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90
"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207
note the bold citation above was written as Jefferson was working on the drafting of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment. sweet dreams!
note to Paul: the last quotation was AFTER the war of 1812. doesn't sound to me like the man was convinced by that war that armies were a good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 10:56:20 GMT -5
Actually... no, they aren't. They are mis-classified. "Arms" are the device that launches the weapon/device or makes the actual attack while in hand (gun/cannon/knife/sword). tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and hand grenades are all DEVICES. i don't believe you are correct. a tactical nuclear weapon is called a nuclear armament, or nuclear arms. arms ärmz/ noun plural noun: arms 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "they were subjugated by force of arms" synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions Not good at researching word history, but I think using the term arms was an extension of using ones actual arm to strike somebody or thing. Kind of goes way back. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2014 11:40:08 GMT -5
i don't believe you are correct. a tactical nuclear weapon is called a nuclear armament, or nuclear arms. arms ärmz/ noun plural noun: arms 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "they were subjugated by force of arms" synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions Not good at researching word history, but I think using the term arms was an extension of using ones actual arm to strike somebody or thing. Kind of goes way back. right, as in weapon. right? as in an alternative to your FIST? "subject is armed and dangerous" doesn't mean anything specific. it could be a knife. it could be a gun. it could be a taser. it could be a grenade. he could have a bomb strapped to him. anything. right? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 11:52:09 GMT -5
Not good at researching word history, but I think using the term arms was an extension of using ones actual arm to strike somebody or thing. Kind of goes way back. right, as in weapon. right? as in an alternative to your FIST? "subject is armed and dangerous" doesn't mean anything specific. it could be a knife. it could be a gun. it could be a taser. it could be a grenade. he could have a bomb strapped to him. anything. right? Agreed, anything. Weapons are classified including their components, but they are all "arms". IMHO of course.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 19:12:51 GMT -5
i don't believe you are correct. a tactical nuclear weapon is called a nuclear armament, or nuclear arms. arms ärmz/ noun plural noun: arms 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "they were subjugated by force of arms" synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions Not good at researching word history, but I think using the term arms was an extension of using ones actual arm to strike somebody or thing. Kind of goes way back. You are correct. That is the origin of this use of "arms". It's the device that allows either an extension of reach to directly attack (knife or sword) or aid in the delivery of an otherwise thrown projectile (gun, bow, grenade launcher et cetera) |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 27, 2014 22:26:31 GMT -5
Let me toss this out there- say we go all 2nd amendment and allow machine guns to be purchased again at will, get rid of background checks and the rest of the 'infringements', or even go so far to allow rocket launchers, shoulder fired missiles, etc. What do you think will happen?
And for the record you CAN buy these things to a point- very highly regulated- unlike guns. Probably why these highly regulated arms have not been used in mass shootings.
But say the NRA gets their way and we end up getting rid of these onerous restrictions, is anyone willing to pay the price for that freedom if the first casualty is the mass murder of 100, or 1000, or 10,000? Will the first jetliner being shot down shake that ideology?
This is why it always boils down to 'gun nuts'. Because these people are nuts. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 22:37:18 GMT -5
They are no more "nuts" that those that want to infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
And, as I mentioned earlier... background checks aren't infringements. Neither is registering requirements, nor is even "mandatory waiting periods". At the end of the process, the citizen with the right to bear arms still gets his arms.
As to the "what do you think will happen?" question... I think more people will be able to protect their homes and themselves... and sometimes protect other innocent people.
What the "let's ban all the stuff!" crowd doesn't seem to grasp is the reality that the people that would use a weapon illegally really don't care about how they obtain it. If someone WANTS to fire a missile at a jetliner, there are places he/she can get a missile and launcher... legal or not. If I WANTED to create massive destruction and massive casualties... there's an ACE Hardware less than a block away with everything I need. I'm not saying I'm GOING to do anything... but if I WANTED to, it's not exactly difficult.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2014 22:47:23 GMT -5
i don't want to ban anything. i want to unban everything. i want grenade launchers. i want shoulder mounted SAM's. i want the kind of guns that destroy tanks. more......bigger.......MORE!!!!!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 27, 2014 23:41:34 GMT -5
They are no more "nuts" that those that want to infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And, as I mentioned earlier... background checks aren't infringements. Neither is registering requirements, nor is even "mandatory waiting periods". At the end of the process, the citizen with the right to bear arms still gets his arms. As to the "what do you think will happen?" question... I think more people will be able to protect their homes and themselves... and sometimes protect other innocent people. What the "let's ban all the stuff!" crowd doesn't seem to grasp is the reality that the people that would use a weapon illegally really don't care about how they obtain it. If someone WANTS to fire a missile at a jetliner, there are places he/she can get a missile and launcher... legal or not. If I WANTED to create massive destruction and massive casualties... there's an ACE Hardware less than a block away with everything I need. I'm not saying I'm GOING to do anything... but if I WANTED to, it's not exactly difficult. OK so what are we arguing about then?
You have to remember- I am not part of the 'ban all the stuff' crowd. And you are correct- a pressure cooker bomb is quite effective and you can buy all of that down the road. In fact I will one-up you and explain that it isn't much harder to blow up a building. Not the point at all.
The point is most of these mass shooters are ill-prepared, stock up on what they can get their hands on and go for it. So selling freaking multiple hundred round drum magazines at the local gun shop is not a good plan is it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 2:49:48 GMT -5
Don't penalize the good 99.99999%... just because the bad 0.00001% exist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2014 0:08:33 GMT -5
Don't penalize the good 99.99999%... just because the bad 0.00001% exist. you really think we are talking about 31 Americans?  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 0:45:12 GMT -5
Don't penalize the good 99.99999%... just because the bad 0.00001% exist. you really think we are talking about 31 Americans? LOL... valid point. Make that "Don't penalize the good 99.9%... just because the bad 0.1% exist. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 30, 2014 8:13:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure we have anyone here who's interested in banning private ownership of all guns (We might, but I don't know of it). Why that keeps coming up is a bit of a surprise to me considering how much this has been discussed.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 30, 2014 13:51:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure we have anyone here who's interested in banning private ownership of all guns (We might, but I don't know of it). Why that keeps coming up is a bit of a surprise to me considering how much this has been discussed. it is a reductio ad absurdum argument. it is fair game. i am making the same argument in the opposite direction: that if my right to own a shotgun is constitutionally protected, so is my right to own a SAM. ipso facto, if the constitution does NOT protect one, then it does NOT protect the other. he is making the opposite argument (as is the NRA), and that is equally valid. so, this really boils down to: what right does the 2nd amendment actually protect? |
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 30, 2014 15:40:07 GMT -5
I'm just a regular guy, but I read the second amendment and it clearly says that the individual states have the right to form their own independent militias, regulate them as they see fit, and arm said militias with whatever arms they want, and the federal government can't infringe on that in any way.
So, going to DJ's point. I see just as much protection for owning a nuclear armed stealth bomber as I do a pump action .22 rifle. Provided I'm a member of my state militia, and my state is cool with it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2014 0:21:00 GMT -5
I'm just a regular guy, but I read the second amendment and it clearly says that the individual states have the right to form their own independent militias, regulate them as they see fit, and arm said militias with whatever arms they want, and the federal government can't infringe on that in any way. So, going to DJ's point. I see just as much protection for owning a nuclear armed stealth bomber as I do a pump action .22 rifle. Provided I'm a member of my state militia, and my state is cool with it. i call that iron-clad logic. it is the kind of logic that has been lacking for 225 years at the SCOTUS (or at least 100). and look at what we have to show for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:43:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 11:39:20 GMT -5
They are no more "nuts" that those that want to infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And, as I mentioned earlier... background checks aren't infringements. Neither is registering requirements, nor is even "mandatory waiting periods". At the end of the process, the citizen with the right to bear arms still gets his arms. As to the "what do you think will happen?" question... I think more people will be able to protect their homes and themselves... and sometimes protect other innocent people. What the "let's ban all the stuff!" crowd doesn't seem to grasp is the reality that the people that would use a weapon illegally really don't care about how they obtain it. If someone WANTS to fire a missile at a jetliner, there are places he/she can get a missile and launcher... legal or not. If I WANTED to create massive destruction and massive casualties... there's an ACE Hardware less than a block away with everything I need. I'm not saying I'm GOING to do anything... but if I WANTED to, it's not exactly difficult. OK so what are we arguing about then?
You have to remember- I am not part of the 'ban all the stuff' crowd. And you are correct- a pressure cooker bomb is quite effective and you can buy all of that down the road. In fact I will one-up you and explain that it isn't much harder to blow up a building. Not the point at all.
The point is most of these mass shooters are ill-prepared, stock up on what they can get their hands on and go for it. So selling freaking multiple hundred round drum magazines at the local gun shop is not a good plan is it?
Freedom comes with a price. People are often in error on what that price is. Trying to put control levels on freedom eliminates it. Trying to control what another human has or does is just human nature. Using emotional reaction to tragedies is just one strategy to control your fellow man. Social engineering a "plan" is another one. |
|
