[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t understand the question?[/quote]
It wasn’t a question.
I stated that giving everyone a nuclear bomb would be the ultimate deterrent against government tyranny.
Everyone has to live with the MAD doctrine. It would be glorious.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t understand the question?[/quote]
It wasn’t a question.
I stated that giving everyone a nuclear bomb would be the ultimate deterrent against government tyranny.
Everyone has to live with the MAD doctrine. It would be glorious. [/quote]
Let’s say that there are only 300,000,000 adults in the U.S. when this bomb distribution occurs. Let’s say that we get really good at making nuclear bombs and produce them for $10,000 each. Three trillion dollars to prevent tyranny? I don’t think that would be preventing tyranny. It would, however, be incredibly stupid to give arms(notice that I don’t even need to specify a type) to people.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t understand the question?[/quote]
It wasn’t a question.
I stated that giving everyone a nuclear bomb would be the ultimate deterrent against government tyranny.
Everyone has to live with the MAD doctrine. It would be glorious. [/quote]
Your post looks like a question to me…
Anyway, as I’ve stated as has Sloth, the wording is what it is so if we have a problem with it then it needs to be changed. I’m fine with changing it. I do not want portable nuclear devices being sold at Best Buy (not that they actually would be because the price would be astronomical).
The problem is that people know it will be difficult to change the 2nd and instead wants to simply add a limiting factor that is not present as written. It’s an emotional argument.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I would suggest that one knows one has a weak argument when one is loathe to sit up and state/defend one’s own position.
[/quote]
You might be right about that but what does that have to do with this thread? No one here has done any loathing about stating and defending one’s own position. In fact, it’d be the very definition of anti-loathing.[/quote]
The question was, as always, avoided or poked around at first. It was asked (totally aptly – again, there is no point in talking about the Second Amendment with anyone who won’t lucidly state his position on the Second Amendment) in the other thread, and the reluctance to answer was thick enough in the air that it could have been chewed. Again, this is understandable, because once the jig is up, criticisms come easily. This because the notion that an unqualified Constitutional right is by that sufficient fact illimitable is utterly ahistorical. And syntactically illogical. And a fringe belief to its silly core.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I would suggest that one knows one has a weak argument when one is loathe to sit up and state/defend one’s own position.
[/quote]
You might be right about that but what does that have to do with this thread? No one here has done any loathing about stating and defending one’s own position. In fact, it’d be the very definition of anti-loathing.[/quote]
The question was, as always, avoided or poked around at first. It was asked (totally aptly – again, there is no point in talking about the Second Amendment with anyone who won’t lucidly state his position on the Second Amendment) in the other thread, and the reluctance to answer was thick enough in the air that it could have been chewed. Again, this is understandable, because once the jig is up, criticisms come easily. This because the notion that an unqualified Constitutional right is by that sufficient fact illimitable is utterly ahistorical. And syntactically illogical. And a fringe belief to its silly core.[/quote]
Like others have said, your reductionist position allows illimitable restrictions and infringement on the Second.[/quote]
And as I explained, this is not the case, exactly as it is not the case that the Brandenburg test and commercial speech laws allow illimitable restrictions on, and abridgment of, the First Amendment right to free speech to the point that the state could without violating the letter, intent, and spirit of the Constitution restrict all legal, nonpunishable speech to the word “succotash.” Exactly as it is not the case that infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms on particular state properties, such as inside courthouses, allows illimitable restrictions on, and abridgment of, the Second Amendment. I could go on, but I already have.
This is and has always been the case, and the alternative is a fantastical fringe theory with utterly no basis in history.
[quote]
Smh, you’re trying to play the game George Will scoffed at in that 1991 column I posted. What you need to do is concede the 2nd is too general and too encompassing and instead of handling it in a “special” manner distinct from the others just repeal/amend the damn thing. [/quote]
It is not more general and encompassing than “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” As for treating it “in a ‘special’ manner distinct from the others,” I have shown painstakingly throughout this thread that that is exactly false – that other unqualified Constitutional rights are not by this fact illimitable and are indeed already legally subject to a wide variety of reasonable limitations. This is not an interpretation, it is a fact. It is not arguable or controversial, and it cannot be denied.
As for what is definitely off the table, I’ll be back with a list of what I think is both reasonable and Constitutional, if that’s what you’re after.
Edited.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Keep this Brandenburg shit up and I’m going to slap you upside the head with the opinion encased in lead when we meet up one of these days!
;-)[/quote]
And we will, my friend.
I recently described you, to Varq, as a kind of mythical embodiment of America. I meant it as a compliment, our disagreements notwithstanding.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But none of your comparisons with the First demand restrictions in the same manner as what you’re proposing for the 2nd. I keep repeating that and you keep sidestepping it.
You do not have to get a permit to exercise your speech rights. You DO have to do so in many cases in order to exercise your gun rights.
[…Examples]
[/quote]
But wait – I am not making some kind of analogical argument to the effect that “we restrict X right in Y way so we should specifically restrict P right in this analogous Q way.” (That would not be a valid argument.) I am simply showing that it is unarguably the case that an unqualified Constitutional right is not by this fact illimitable. I have shown that this is true – objective, plain fact. It would be ludicrous and ahistorical to pretend otherwise.
This fact – and it is a fact – is important because the gun debate tends to become entangled in an (incorrect) explicit or implied claim to the contrary, which is (again, incorrectly) assumed to be some kind of trump card.
This has been the scope of my argument. I’m not arguing for >N-round magazines or anything specific. I am doing something much more general and, honestly, much more important. Because what I’ve written in this post is enormously misunderstood, and logically prior to all the rest of it. Every bit of it.
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
You have a “feeling”… Well, I guess that settles it then. Thanks for letting us keep some guns though. That’s nice of you.