RE: What if it wasn't a gun?

RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

evesgrden -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 2:22:21 PM)
quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. 1. The right to bear arms applies to those who are part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't read that citizens, being necessary to the security of the USA, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's a little more specific than that. But let's say it wasn't. Let's say that everyone, from Charlie Manson (if he ever got paroled) to Jim Jones (although koolaid is certainly more humane than anthrax) to the bloods and crips and every other gang could be considered part of a well organized militia. But wait.. if you've been convicted of Domestic Violence, use certain drugs illegally or have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment, then no, I believe you can't own a firearm or ammo., not according to the Gun Control Act of 1968. I've known hot heads with fiery tempers who might well have made horrific choices if they had access to firearms that killed many people very efficiently, very easily and very quickly. Why just shoot other students when you can blow up the whole school, or the whole post office, or the whole community center. I feel so much safer with that well regulated militia ensuring the security of the country. I just get get warm fuzzies knowing tthose white supremacists are stockpiling to keep me safe. Or rather, keep others safe from me. As if ak-47's could do anything against a blackhawk. Automatic weapons have next to nothing to do with national security and everything to do with murder and intimidation. It's silly to think that any weapons you or I could buy would hep keep a government at bay. Embrace the horror: for good or ill those days are long gone. ok, I've rambled enough now

MercTech -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 5:27:07 PM)
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense

evesgrden -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 6:20:06 PM)
Your point?

jlf1961 -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 6:31:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Your point? Did you bother to read it, or do we need to post the major points for you?

Musicmystery -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 6:32:18 PM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpkDdLZGg30

BamaD -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 8:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. 1. The right to bear arms applies to those who are part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't read that citizens, being necessary to the security of the USA, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's a little more specific than that. But let's say it wasn't. Let's say that everyone, from Charlie Manson (if he ever got paroled) to Jim Jones (although koolaid is certainly more humane than anthrax) to the bloods and crips and every other gang could be considered part of a well organized militia. But wait.. if you've been convicted of Domestic Violence, use certain drugs illegally or have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment, then no, I believe you can't own a firearm or ammo., not according to the Gun Control Act of 1968. I've known hot heads with fiery tempers who might well have made horrific choices if they had access to firearms that killed many people very efficiently, very easily and very quickly. Why just shoot other students when you can blow up the whole school, or the whole post office, or the whole community center. I feel so much safer with that well regulated militia ensuring the security of the country. I just get get warm fuzzies knowing tthose white supremacists are stockpiling to keep me safe. Or rather, keep others safe from me. As if ak-47's could do anything against a blackhawk. Automatic weapons have next to nothing to do with national security and everything to do with murder and intimidation. It's silly to think that any weapons you or I could buy would hep keep a government at bay. Embrace the horror: for good or ill those days are long gone. ok, I've rambled enough now Each of those things was a penalty for criminal behavior. Your entire post is a misrepresentation of my point.

BamaD -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 8:43:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind. They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

joether -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 10:14:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense Tell me, how bias is the information presented in this 'article'? The answer should be plainly obvious to anyone that does some research on the source. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. This is not a 'shoot the messenger, the message dies' sort of argument. its the understanding that this organization has a political agenda that serves itself, NOT, the United States of America. What I find even more sad, MercTech, is that you have no ability on your own to even explain your views on this (for or against is irrelevant). That you need someone else to do your thinking and reasoning because you, yourself can not muster up an original thought. An I do know you can do such a thing. So why the lack of 'putting it into your own words'? Would you like it if I presented some site that is plainly obvious and holds a liberal agenda of the opposite viewpoint? Of course not. So why push this garbage?

lovmuffin -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 10:17:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind. They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home.

BamaD -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 10:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind. They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home. I was referring to unfettered access and ownership.

joether -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/22/2014 10:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind. They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home. I was referring to unfettered access and ownership. Like that psycho that got an assault rifle by legal means and then went to a small elementary school called 'Sandy Hook'? Kids are not the idiots parents or adults think them to be. They can be quite crafty and cunning when they want to be. What they lack, is wisdom and experience. Unfortunately, so do adults. Kids know where the gun safe is. And making a duplicate key and/or finding the combination to open the safe is not to hard either. The parent can not watch that gun safe 24/7. And most likely is not aware of any wrong doing until the slaughter is over. I think you understand me well enough BamaD, that I'm not pushing to "ban 'em all". My knowledge and experience has been, when kids get ahold of such weapons, and have a REALLY tough time with life......only bad things follow in the wake of their foot falls. We are not talking the kid that learns proper firearm safety, isn't bullied in school, a star performer grade wise and a model young citizen; that's an absolute fantasy. That these kids can not think things through or learn to find alterative ways of dealing with life's problems, should be a very disturbing thought to anyone (gun owner and not). When they feel trapped, alone, surrounded on all sides by the enemy, with little or no friends, and no one they feel they can trust.....the firearm provides a very easy way of getting payback.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 6:43:12 AM)
quote: They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then?

BamaD -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 7:07:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind. They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home. I was referring to unfettered access and ownership. Like that psycho that got an assault rifle by legal means and then went to a small elementary school called 'Sandy Hook'? Kids are not the idiots parents or adults think them to be. They can be quite crafty and cunning when they want to be. What they lack, is wisdom and experience. Unfortunately, so do adults. Kids know where the gun safe is. And making a duplicate key and/or finding the combination to open the safe is not to hard either. The parent can not watch that gun safe 24/7. And most likely is not aware of any wrong doing until the slaughter is over. I think you understand me well enough BamaD, that I'm not pushing to "ban 'em all". My knowledge and experience has been, when kids get ahold of such weapons, and have a REALLY tough time with life......only bad things follow in the wake of their foot falls. We are not talking the kid that learns proper firearm safety, isn't bullied in school, a star performer grade wise and a model young citizen; that's an absolute fantasy. That these kids can not think things through or learn to find alterative ways of dealing with life's problems, should be a very disturbing thought to anyone (gun owner and not). When they feel trapped, alone, surrounded on all sides by the enemy, with little or no friends, and no one they feel they can trust.....the firearm provides a very easy way of getting payback. That "kid" was over 20, another red herring.

BamaD -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 7:10:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then? In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything.

thishereboi -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 7:18:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then? In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything. He seems to be under the impression that because they let kids do shit in the past, that we should be letting them do the same things today. Of course this is the same poster who referenced the Cartwrights as an example of how we live so maybe he's just been watching too many old westerns and doesn't quite grasp that that isn't how we still live. Now personally I always thought he was smarter than that but after reading his last posts I am beginning to wonder.

Musicmystery -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 8:00:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then? In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything. Still not quite grasping the False Dilemma fallacy, I see.

BamaD -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 8:19:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then? Be consistent call for 12 year old miners.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 11:10:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: They are not full citizens yet, another red herring. That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote. And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then? In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything. My position is that the conditions that existed during the writing of the 2nd Amendment are no longer the same and nobody, including you, and me, agrees with the letter of what it said. It didn't talk about full citizens. It didn't talk about adults. It didn't talk about children over the age of 10, sixteen; nor teenagers over 18. It talked about people. The fact that most people - again, including myself - agree with the idea that young kids shouldn't be given guns is neither here nor there on this matter. Neither does it matter (though it's kind of weird, I do admit) that it was apparently deemed acceptable that, say, a 14 year old kid was legally entitled to shoot and kill a man but not to vote. The point is that you don't, in fact, agree with the writers of the 2nd Amendment, no matter how much you say you do. Likewise, whether you like it or not, you do agree with the 2nd as a living document.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 11:20:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi He seems to be under the impression that because they let kids do shit in the past, that we should be letting them do the same things today. Of course this is the same poster who referenced the Cartwrights as an example of how we live so maybe he's just been watching too many old westerns and doesn't quite grasp that that isn't how we still live. Now personally I always thought he was smarter than that but after reading his last posts I am beginning to wonder. It seems like you haven't just missed the point here, you worked really hard to miss it. Jeez, THB, that was simple. I suppose it would be useless to ask you to point out where I've said that kids should be allowed to do the same 'shit' as they did in the past? I mean, hell, at least build a straw man that looks human! Now, if you'd kindly cite the post where I referenced the Cartwrights and explain why it was manifestly to be taken seriously, I'd really appreciate it.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/23/2014 11:25:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Be consistent call for 12 year old miners. I'm not the one claiming consistent support for the 2nd, Bama. You are. Yet you don't agree with the writers of it on the point of freedom of gun use to the under 18s. Bravo, I say: you've moved, despite believing you haven't. To restate, earlier, you said: "When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it. " But you have argued for infringing the rights - most likely accepted by those who wrote the 2nd - of at least some under 18s to use guns. So which is it to be?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875