Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.

141 posts in this topic

Posted

sweet red herring bro

Of course then this happens god damn it. Can't believe someone would actually think that is some sort of reasonable argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's just finger pointing. Back and forth. America is 50/50 right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Insulting the people you are addressing will immediately turn them off to whatever great points you may have made or will make.

You always have to assume they will eventually begin to respond with reason if you want to make progress with a discussion. Otherwise we are just flailing around saying you are stupid... no you!

if you read the post i wrote that in, you'll see that i juxtaposed my annoyance with that specific argument and its prevalence in the debate with my fundamental agreement that it's an important point that needs to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's just finger pointing. Back and forth. America is 50/50 right now.

No it isn't.

It's political agendas being advanced by exploiting the ability to bring people into an unreasoning frothing rage over an unfortunate and very tragic event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

if you read the post i wrote that in, you'll see that i juxtaposed my annoyance with that specific argument and its prevalence in the debate with my fundamental agreement that it's an important point that needs to be addressed.

I always read your entire posts. You are always worth reading. Now understand that while I can easily see your point especially considering I was not one being insulted others will be distracted by your insult.

Yes I saw what you said and I agree with you. It MUST be addressed. We need to consider the future of citizen weaponry in this country. We need to start doing it right now.

I don't comment on your posts because you very rarely say anything I disagree with.

In other words by the end of your first paragraph you are already igniting the fuging LIBERALS response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I always read your entire posts. You are always worth reading. Now understand that while I can easily see your point especially considering I was not one being insulted others will be distracted by your insult.

Yes I saw what you said and I agree with you. It MUST be addressed. We need to consider the future of citizen weaponry in this country. We need to start doing it right now.

I don't comment on your posts because you very rarely say anything I disagree with.

In other words by the end of your first paragraph you are already igniting the fuging LIBERALS response.

hmmm... i'll concede the point. thanks for being an objective and clear-thinking dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I reject the idea that the 2nd amendment forbids the regulation of what arms can and cannot be owned... until that in particular hits the supreme court we won't know how modern scholars would interpret it, but even Scalia seems to think there is some justification for regulating guns:

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

http://www.nationalj...efid=mostViewed

Even within the 2010 case, it was clear that the majority thought that it was perfectly acceptable to restrict firearms within certain criterion.

I also disagree with people that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the modern day militia, the National Guard. I actually agree with Scalia again RE: the meaning of the militia - that is to say, it had nothing to do with the National Guard as we see it today, but rather, a subset of the population that could be called upon to organize for defense (e.g., law-abiding, "responsible" citizens, else we'd have to allow fellons etc to own guns too?).

Ultimately I think something like an assault weapons ban could be constitutional provided the writers of the ban are capable of showing that the weapons that are banned are not "in common use at the time" or are overly dangerous (see the majority decision, DC vs Heller, 2008)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

mav1234 you are on the right path here.

Ultimately any assault weapon ban will be ruled constitutional whether it is logically consistent with the language within the constitution or not. If there are instances of the writers making exceptions for frightening weapons it just goes to show how poorly written the amendment is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's not poorly written, just poorly interpreted. It specifically says that people are allowed to have guns in order to protect the state they live in when called upon. It's written with even less certainty than the First Amendment, and there are plenty of restrictions on what you can say, for example, despite the wording of it. That's because "Freedom of Speech" is something that needs to be determined, not something that is a wide open idea. Now apply that to the Second Amendment and you have the idea.

It's archaic for sure, but the problem is people thinking that somehow the folks who wrote it were thinking about how much technology would advance hundreds of years down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what purpose would someone need 10 rounds?

Lots of reasons. As for me, I want a firepower advantage. See, I don't hunt. I want to be armed so I can shoot back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's not poorly written

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.

It's like two half formed ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

hmmm... i'll concede the point. thanks for being an objective and clear-thinking dude

Enjoy that nut licking post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites