Archived

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

CatofWar

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.

141 posts in this topic

43-55 million households own at least one gun. Take this argument up with those households. Lets see how it turns out.

You gun grabbing people's opinions equal poo. Continue to praise people that have turned in their weapons like PhillyB did for SCP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoy that nut licking post.

haha i was serious. kral has always been super objective and come into discussions like this not beating an ideological drum but actually trying to get to the bottom of issues. that's rare and it should be pointed out when it surfaces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.

To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

i know gun control discussions usually end up covering the whole "why can't citizens have nukes" thing but seriously, you know that civilians couldn't ever defeat the us military (unless we're living in fantasy land where military types would turn on the government or whatever, in which case, why the need for an armed populace anyway?) should civilians have access to the ordnance required to actually defeat a tyrannical american government? much like the founding fathers never dreamed of the technological advances that might be unsuitable for the general public, they also never dreamed of drones and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know gun control discussions usually end up covering the whole "why can't citizens have nukes" thing but seriously, you know that civilians couldn't ever defeat the us military (unless we're living in fantasy land where military types would turn on the government or whatever, in which case, why the need for an armed populace anyway?) should civilians have access to the ordnance required to actually defeat a tyrannical american government? much like the founding fathers never dreamed of the technological advances that might be unsuitable for the general public, they also never dreamed of drones and such.

at the time of the amendment's writing, everyday citizens had just defeated the world's most advanced military.

While I agree that a citizens vs. Military battle is stuff of fantasy, keep in mind the forces that have regularly handled our military with ease. Iraq tried to fight us in a traditional military manner in the early 1990s. Their ground forces were defeated in 96 hours.

But Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq part II, etc, weren't fought by military. They were fought by guys who work the crops and do oil changes in their spare time. Asymmetrical warfare isn't our strongsuit.

But I don't want to get too far off topic. Would you say the second, third and fourth Amendments are related? Or is that a connection that I'm imagining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm aware that we're p bad at fighting unconventional forces relatively speaking but the common link between iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, et al is home field advantage (this would be in the military's advantage in a hypothetical war within the states i'd imagine) and insurgency (probably won't see too many mexicans or canadians sneaking into america to fight alongside americans). and even with the advantages that insurgents have, body count doesn't seem to favor them. anyway i guess i can't say there's a 0 percent chance that civilians would prevail in an uprising but it's gotta be close

as for the amendments i mean there's a connection; if the army decided that they were going to take wilmington and stay in my house my only recourse would be the court system and then i guess an armed rebellion that is likely destined for failure. i'm not anti-revolution (couldn't imagine being an anti-revolution leftist) or anti-gun ownership; i'm just seeing this as "we've gone too far down the rabbit hole, we spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, we're much better off attempting to elect the right people and not having a gun in every pot." guns or no guns, we don't live in an era where civilians keep the government in check in any way beyond voting.

anyway more on topic, there is precedent for restricting rights (can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't keep a stock of explosives just in case the government decides to enslave everyone or whatever), and the question in every gun control debate shouldn't be whether or not regulation is constitutional (it is), but rather "how much can we regulate until we reach and cross the line of unconstitutionality?" if we agree that citizens shouldn't have access to military ordnance, then we agree that citizens should be placed at a significant disadvantage in any type of armed conflict with the government (to the point that victory is not very likely at all). and if we agree that, say, felons and toddlers can't own guns, then we again agree that the government can (and should) place limitations on the right to bear arms. if the government can regulate types of speech and access to weaponry, i would think that regulating types of firearms falls within the purview of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.

To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.

Excellent. Thank you for pointing this out. I will consider it further. I'm interested in this beneficent purposes statement. It appears to me to give significant wiggle room in the logical interpretation that I hadn't considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your assuming you have that right. It hasn't been determined, and in fact based on the fact we had a prior "assault weapons" ban, your likely going to be incorrect.

I don't agree with the proposed ban, but i am tired of people deciding what they think their constituional rights are. It's kind of simple, challenge it in court, if you lose appeal, and then the SCOTUS will tell you if it is constutional or not, and if they rule against you, it isn't a right.

It's great you have an opinion and all, but that doesn't change the law

Thats why the 2nd admendment is supposed to be protected by habeas corpus. To insure my right to bear arms in defense and protection of foreign domestic and tyrannical threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you know that a right in fact does not unequivocally mean you can do whatever you want because it's defined by societal parameters?

exactly, thats why I said you don"t have the right to attack someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to live in a country that allows me the right to arm myself for protection as I decide is nessessary. If in the future, politicians dictate that right null and void, I will thank God for the God given free will to continue to arm myself as i decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government officials exempt from ban

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gun control is always going to be a touchy subject but it's fun to read some of the responses all the same!!!!

I'm curious how many pro gun people actually believe there will be a state uprising and all those firearms you have stockpiled is going to save you and your family one day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites