Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
140 replies to this topic

#25 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,868
  • Reputation: 2,556
SUPPORTER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

Lets make this easy:

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


So:

1. Can you establish a religion where, say, bigamy is OK because you have a religious reason to do it?
2. Can you yell "fire!" in a crowded theater?
3. Can you publicly say anything you like about someone you don't like to try and hurt them whether or not it's true? Can the press do this?
3. Can you peaceably assemble in the middle of a military base to protest a war or something?

This should give you an idea of how the Constitution actually works when you are interested in more than keeping your fancy toys.

#26 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,522
  • Reputation: 895
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

Rights are granted...they CAN be taken away. The constitution isn't something that CAN'T be changed. It can, with enough people in positions of power deciding to do it.

That being said, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to own a gun. That is granted to you by the government. It doesn't outline which types of guns/ammo you can't own....but it doesn't say, "you can own any type of gun you want". As far as what guns you own....that is up to what the government decides. No civilian needs an AR/M4/HK416, M16, etc. People who are pissed about this literally have no other argument other than the 7 year old child argument of "BUT I WANT IT!".


False. We are born with our rights and they can not be taken away. Hence the inalienable part. I'm glad you're ok with the government deciding what is best for you and your family. Maybe they should establish a state religion and make you convert. Hey, they know what's best.

#27 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

"you can own any type of gun you want".


That is exactly what it says. You know the legal definition of infringement right?

#28 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,924
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:17 PM

False. We are born with our rights and they can not be taken away. Hence the inalienable part. I'm glad you're ok with the government deciding what is best for you and your family. Maybe they should establish a state religion and make you convert. Hey, they know what's best.



People can say that you're born with "rights", but you're not. Rights are something that are granted to you by somebody else. Hence why we need a constitution that specifically outlines which rights we ARE granted.

It's not about the government deciding what is best for me and my family. It's about what the government's job is. We have the right to own guns. According to the 2nd Amendment, saying "you cannot own a gun" to American citizens is unconstitutional. Agreeable? OK .Where does it say ANY gun? Where does it say you can own whatever gun you want?


Again, just like "freedom of speech". You can say whatever you want, within reason. You have the freedom to say you disagree with the president in public. You do not have the right to say you are going to attack him or his family. This thing with guns is LITERALLY no different at all. You can own guns...just not automatic/semi-automatic weapons. Which is fair and reasonable.

#29 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,924
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

That is exactly what it says. You know the legal definition of infringement right?



No, it does not say that. Nobody is taking away from the 2nd Amendment at all. You have the right to keep and bear arms for a well-regulated militia. Should people also be allowed to own RPGs then? I mean, it's a firearm, right?

#30 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

It's not about the government deciding what is best for me and my family. It's about what the government's job is. We have the right to own guns. According to the 2nd Amendment, saying "you cannot own a gun" to American citizens is unconstitutional. Agreeable? OK .Where does it say ANY gun? Where does it say you can own whatever gun you want?


It says you can own ANY gun because of the use of the word infringed. To say that I cannot own a .50 caliber machine gun is infringing on my right to KEEP arms. To say I can't carry it down the street is infringing on my right to BEAR arms.

Is that ridiculous? Yes. The second amendment is terribly written.

#31 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

No, it does not say that. Nobody is taking away from the 2nd Amendment at all. You have the right to keep and bear arms for a well-regulated militia. Should people also be allowed to own RPGs then? I mean, it's a firearm, right?


In my opinion? No they shouldn't. That is what the constitution says no matter what you want to argue though. You don't understand the definition of infringement clearly.

#32 TruCatzFan

TruCatzFan

    Phil 4:13

  • Joined: 21-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,470
  • Reputation: 592
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:24 PM

Lights out has been sent by the establishment to try and brainwash the Huddle with his lack of knowledge.

Only problem is... He's the only one buying what they're selling.



#33 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,924
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:25 PM

It says you can own ANY gun because of the use of the word infringed. To say that I cannot own a .50 caliber machine gun is infringing on my right to KEEP arms. To say I can't carry it down the street is infringing on my right to BEAR arms.

Is that ridiculous? Yes. The second amendment is terribly written.



OK, I see what you're getting at. We need to rework it, but it will never happen because of this retarded sense of "tradition". I am fairly certain we're the only 1st world country that hasn't edited our constitution, at least since WWII ended anyway.

#34 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,924
  • Reputation: 1,342
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:27 PM

Lights out has been sent by the establishment to try and brainwash the Huddle with his lack of knowledge.

Only problem is... He's the only one buying what they're selling.



Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

#35 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

You have the right to keep and bear arms for a well-regulated militia.


That is not what the second amendment says. The second amendment says that the PEOPLE not the MILITIA have a right to bear arms that will not be infringed. In fact the right doesn't come from it it is assumed by it and states that it shall not be infringed. The militia part of the amendment has no bearing on that right. It merely states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

#36 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

OK, I see what you're getting at. We need to rework it, but it will never happen because of this retarded sense of "tradition". I am fairly certain we're the only 1st world country that hasn't edited our constitution, at least since WWII ended anyway.


Alright forget my last post then. Looks like you see where I'm coming from. Yes I agree with you.

Also I wouldn't say it would never happen. It eventually will I hypothesize.