[quote]Legionary wrote:
An armed populace is an essential component of liberty. I am a firm believer in Machiavelli’s maxim “Before all else, be armed.” The 2nd amendment is indeed inalienable in my eyes. But where do we draw the line on what constitutes as appropriate weapon systems for a civilian to own? We have to bring into account that the “arms” mentioned in the Bill of Rights at the time were single shot small arms that while deadly, were dreadfully inaccurate and capable of only around 3 shot per minute in the hands of a trained soldier. (Correct me if I’m wrong here as I have little experience with period weapons) Tactical shotguns and handguns, including lawful concealed carry? Check, self-defense. Hunting rifles and shotguns? Check, recreation and low magazine capacity. Semi-automatic personal defense weapons/submachine guns and assault rifle platforms? Large capacity magazine, but an argument can be made for self defense. I myself own an AR. But how can one justify their right to own a modern weapon system that is not a small arm, and/ or capable of burst/fully automatic fire? When will a civilian realistically find themselves in a situation that necessitates such a capability? In the same way our freedom of speech is realistically limited, preventing me from threatening you with physical violence or yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Essentially, where do my rights end and yours begin?[/quote]
Utter and total BS. I get tired of this absurdly ignorant argument.
You take a fully automatic M16. I’ll take a ship with a full array of 30 pound cannons, and we’ll see who can do more damage.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you are in favor of allowing the government to have arms citizens cannot, you are not in favor of the second amendment.
[/quote]
You seem to believe that there is not room for interpretation in the Bill of Rights–a belief which betrays fundamental ignorance of American history and jurisprudence.
Or would you support a reversal of Brandenburg v. Ohio on the grounds that it contradicts the most childish and simplistic reading of the letter of the law?
This disaster could have been prevented by one more gun — in the hands of the female victim.
As noted up thread, she’d have no chance against the 228 lb linebacker.
Her only shot was to be able to shoot.
The lesson to take from this is not “guns are bad,” but that the women need more guns and need to know how to use them.
I’d also note that I was offerred a position to provide security for certain media outlets. Bob is surrounded by armed guards and goons, pretty much 24/7. (I declined the position and started a drilling company.) I guess Bob is more equal than the rest of us.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
How about a background check before posting on the interent?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you are in favor of allowing the government to have arms citizens cannot, you are not in favor of the second amendment.
[/quote]
You seem to believe that there is not room for interpretation in the Bill of Rights–a belief which betrays fundamental ignorance of American history and jurisprudence.
Or would you support a reversal of Brandenburg v. Ohio on the grounds that it contradicts the most childish and simplistic reading of the letter of the law?[/quote]
Lol. Please continue to show your ignorance.
The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.
If you are against that, then just state the fact that you are against the second amendment and think the constitution should be changed.
Or you can continue mental gymnastics and deflection while failing to address the issue.
It’s shit like this where judges and lawyers change the constitution without actually changing the constitution while claiming to uphold it. Total bullshit. You don’t like what it says, great. They built in a process where you can change it.
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. We gotta take up quite the arsenal if we want to protect ourselves from them.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
You really think AKs are the reason we won’t win in Afghanistan?
Say high to bombs, bombs, and more bombs. Often strapped to people.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
You really think AKs are the reason we won’t win in Afghanistan? How often do you think it is those goat herders GUNS doing the damage? How many of us are willing to blow ourselves up anyways? [/quote]
No, it’s their resolve. They have conviction in their cause something America has lost, but would get back if the need truly arose.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
You really think AKs are the reason we won’t win in Afghanistan? How often do you think it is those goat herders GUNS doing the damage? How many of us are willing to blow ourselves up anyways? [/quote]
No, it’s their resolve. They have conviction in their cause something America has lost, but would get back if the need truly arose.
[/quote]
It’s a multitude of factors. Resolve against foreign invaders. Us not being to figure out exactly who is the enemy.
We will never achieve victory in Afghanistan (largely because we have no idea what that is), but their guns is not the reason for that.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
Fire in a crowded theater, slander, multitude of other examples. Speech is restricted in many ways.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
You really think AKs are the reason we won’t win in Afghanistan? How often do you think it is those goat herders GUNS doing the damage? How many of us are willing to blow ourselves up anyways? [/quote]
No, it’s their resolve. They have conviction in their cause something America has lost, but would get back if the need truly arose.
[/quote]
It’s a multitude of factors. Resolve against foreign invaders. Us not being to figure out exactly who is the enemy.
We will never achieve victory in Afghanistan (largely because we have no idea what that is), but their guns is not the reason for that. [/quote]
I don’t believe Double meant AK-47 are the reason we haven’t “won.” I was trying to point that out is all.
The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.
[/quote]
Exactly which text do you refer to when you aver that the Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.” Not the Constitution, that’s for damn sure.
And again, it says right there in the text that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Should Brandenburg v. Ohio be overturned in your view, or should it not?
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
The rules of engagement were why we had problems in Afganistan.
We were fighting by Earl of Queensberry pussy fighting rules. They were doing whatever it took.
We could have pacified Afganistan in 10 months if actually permitted to fight.
That’s fine. I just think their is a certain amount of issue with saying don’t take our guns so we can protect against the government, but in also wanting our military to be so large and powerful they would be useless.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
Fire in a crowded theater, slander, multitude of other examples. Speech is restricted in many ways. [/quote]
These aren’t restrictions though. There are consequences to the above, but you’re free to do them. That’s a big distiction I think.