No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? - Page 7

No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

This is a discussion on No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The principle is; that we shouldn't need a reason to own select fire weapons. Our stance is that the 2A grants us this right and ...

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 123

Thread: No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,798
    The principle is; that we shouldn't need a reason to own select fire weapons.

    Our stance is that the 2A grants us this right and the restriction of these weapons, and I'll include SBS, SBR & suppressors, is unconstitutional.

    The general populace have an irrational fear of these types of weapons, just like they have guns and hanguns.

    Another fear is that these weapons will end up in the wrong hands. Again, they're already in the wrong hands. We want to put them into the right hands; the hands of law-abiding citizens.

    A well structured, articulate argument, based on fact, could sway the general population. There will be those that will not concede their stance, though. Their minds will never be changed.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source


  2. #92
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    Why can't we get them back? Because a disgusting number of people who claim to be pro-liberty, aren't. It's that simple. Look at the volume of posts on all kinds of topics around here in which members call for even more restrictions on our various rights. These are self proclaimed patriots, and "pro- 2A" people, yet they're begging for ever increasing violation of our rights.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    Hopyard and the other naysayers are entitled to their opinion, no matter how secular they are.
    If your taken the standard meaning thatís probably a good thing. I would hate to mix drugs and firearms. Yes Marx,.

    On this forum already you read plenty of range horror stories. Do we need to give the lowest denominator even more complicated weapons that have the potential to instead of fire one accidental discharge, multiple. In a perfect world it would be nice, you could trust people, and it would not be an issue. But these perfect worlds exist in the fictions of fantasies and the promises of cults. Shore it would be nice to review the laws, take another look at them and perhaps change some things. However I believe it rates on the extreme low of political priorities.

  4. #94
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Maybe a couple.
    Who or what is after you that makes you have this desire for a FA weapon?
    At what caliber, type of weapon, or age of ownership would you draw a line?

    Please respond in a reasonable manner, because truly I'm trying to understand your logic.
    Reason 1: There is no reason other than "Who are you to tell me that I cant own a FA weapon"?

    Reason 2: When did and what gives the right to government to tell me I can or can't own a FA weapon?

    Reason 3: Because I understand what the Founders believed in and I DO NOT SECOND GUESS that understanding.

    Reason 4: What gives the government of your own country the right to overpower you with weapons technology when "we the people" give them the power to even be in power?

    And lastly reason 5: Because I served in the military, they are fun, plus I earned and deserve the right to own a weapon that I utilized in the forces that gave you the freedom to try and take my freedom away from me. Good enough logic?

    Hard to understand where I am coming from now? sigh (yes for real).

    Your questions answered:

    Age should be modeled after age of legal consent in your state. Not some federal law.
    Caliber is irrelevant. If you can afford it you should be able to invest in it. There should be no limitations on firearms. If the firearm requires a crew to handle it maybe that would be the line.

    And dont ask me about what to do about criminals. They are criminals they have FA weapons right now anyways. Why should we be treated with the laws aimed at criminals who DO NOT observe the laws?

    Any other questions?
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #95
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    I gave you 5 answers as to why and they probably made perfect sense.

    Now give us at least 1 single answer that makes perfect sense as to why not?

    And believe me there are a lot of people reading this thread regularly.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #96
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    On this forum already you read plenty of range horror stories. Do we need to give the lowest denominator even more complicated weapons that have the potential to instead of fire one accidental discharge, multiple. In a perfect world it would be nice, you could trust people, and it would not be an issue. But these perfect worlds exist in the fictions of fantasies and the promises of cults. Shore it would be nice to review the laws, take another look at them and perhaps change some things. However I believe it rates on the extreme low of political priorities.
    That post is just filled with faulty lines of reasoning.

    You cannot judge all men by the lowest common denominator. To do so is to treat honest men as criminals. Every man's rights are his own, and are not contingent on the actions or abuses of others.

    Also, degree of complication has no bearing whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms, nor any other right. Anything more complicated that a pointy stick can be said to be "too complex for the masses," with no objective standard to measure by. Besides that, mechanically, many full-auto firearms are far simpler than their semi-auto counterparts. Does that mean that these simple guns are "more protected" under the 2A?

    If you applied that same thinking to the 1A, computers, typewriters, and even printing presses could all be "too complicated, able to spread bad ideas too easily, and to multiple people at once, not just one".

    The "perfect world" argument completely misses the point. It's not about trusting anyone, like your mother trusts you with a delicate toy. Grown men do not need permission to excercise rights. Whether anybody else likes it or not, or trusts them or not, it comes down to the fact that no person or group of people can legitimately limit the excercise of rights by anyone else.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  7. #97
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Reason 1: There is no reason other than "Who are you to tell me that I cant own a FA weapon"?

    Reason 2: When did and what gives the right to government to tell me I can or can't own a FA weapon?

    Reason 3: Because I understand what the Founders believed in and I DO NOT SECOND GUESS that understanding.

    Reason 4: What gives the government of your own country the right to overpower you with weapons technology when "we the people" give them the power to even be in power?

    And lastly reason 5: Because I served in the military, they are fun, plus I earned and deserve the right to own a weapon that I utilized in the forces that gave you the freedom to try and take my freedom away from me. Good enough logic?

    Hard to understand where I am coming from now? sigh (yes for real).

    Your questions answered:

    Age should be modeled after age of legal consent in your state. Not some federal law.
    Caliber is irrelevant. If you can afford it you should be able to invest in it. There should be no limitations on firearms. If the firearm requires a crew to handle it maybe that would be the line.

    And dont ask me about what to do about criminals. They are criminals they have FA weapons right now anyways. Why should we be treated with the laws aimed at criminals who DO NOT observe the laws?

    Any other questions?
    Cool off Francis I'm not your enemy. I simply wanted to try and understand your logic.

    I just believe that since you're this passionate about this that your enthusiasum would be better directed toward the powers that could affect a change rather than "preaching to the choir".

  8. #98
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    My apologies bubba. I guess I mistook your questioning. There are so many people who never think for themselves and argue talking points rather than logic and reasoning and I assumed wrongly.

    I'm trying to organize a meeting with a local lawmaker that I have befriended soon to bring this issue up and get his opinion. I do not however have massive passion nor capital but hopefully we have a collective passion.

    One voice is not enough to make a change but thousands are. We all preach to the choir on these message forums and rarely do we ever leave the computer with anything life changing outside of discussion.

    I am not advocating political movement on these forums so as to keep with in the rules we leave it at a discussion about the topic. Kind of hard not to preach to each other in this medium.

    I might have startEd the thread but there are equally and more passionate people than I here. I think that shows that I'm not the only one believing in the principle of the right more than a stupid machine gun would ever mean in comparison. But why is it justified to take our right awa?
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #99
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    I agree that a person should have all the rights afforded by the constitution.

    My biggest concern on this and other issues is the level of responsibility that people have. I don't know if it's just me or not, but the days of people being responsible for themselves and their actions seem to be disappearing. In my opinion that lack of responsibility is what concerns me and perhaps others.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Look at the number of people that buy into some crazy stuff I would say that the lowest denominator is sickenly close to a mode. There are honest men and criminals occupying this bracket. Ever read Plato’s explanation of knowledge ( the cave metaphor)? Think about the people chained up watching the shadows.
    Yes and there are plenty of people out there that show no ability to use a car, firearm, bout, motor bike or many other tools. Does that mean we should ban them completely no. should we ask for some training and level of competence, I would argue yes. Ok so, mechanically fully automatic weapons are simpler? If you would notice I was talking about operationally. On the flip side it seams that many peoples logic applied to the 1A would make libel and slander completely legal. Actually the perfect world thing does have some credence. Most of our political philosophy and theories exist in the vacuum of a perfect world, that perfect world does not exist, hence we change our reality away from our theories.

  11. #101
    Member Array MIKEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PDRMD
    Posts
    326
    People speak of responsibility.

    Have you ever considered that people take less personal responsibity because the government in all its forms are removing more and more of it from the folks willing to give it up.

    Can't make your payment, "Oh someone must have taken advantage of you." says the govt.

    I wonder why more people can't see this. I guess I think more like a Reardon than a Biden.

    MikeV

  12. #102
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    I just cant believe this thread is 6 pages now.

    It shows that there are a great number of people who feel strongly that we should regain our rights to FA weapons based on the principle and not on the weapon necessarily.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #103
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEV View Post
    People speak of responsibility.

    Have you ever considered that people take less personal responsibity because the government in all its forms are removing more and more of it from the folks willing to give it up.

    Can't make your payment, "Oh someone must have taken advantage of you." says the govt.

    I wonder why more people can't see this. I guess I think more like a Reardon than a Biden.

    MikeV
    This is one thing (less responsibility) that I don't necessarily blame entirely on the government.

  14. #104
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    I agree that a person should have all the rights afforded by the constitution.

    My biggest concern on this and other issues is the level of responsibility that people have. I don't know if it's just me or not, but the days of people being responsible for themselves and their actions seem to be disappearing. In my opinion that lack of responsibility is what concerns me and perhaps others.
    That concerns me also, but I am not of the opinion that people's freedoms should disappear or weaken in stride. Concern over lack of responsibility is perfectly fine. However, It cannot justify coercive action against the excercise of rights by other people, even "for their own good" or for "the good of society."

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    Look at the number of people that buy into some crazy stuff I would say that the lowest denominator is sickenly close to a mode. There are honest men and criminals occupying this bracket. Ever read Platoís explanation of knowledge ( the cave metaphor)? Think about the people chained up watching the shadows.
    So, you wish to treat the honest men as criminals? No matter your opinion on human capability and worth, your argument cannot justify restricting the rights of honest men due to the actions or hypothesized actions of criminals.

    I don't think you're applying the allegory of the cave correctly (if I understand your meaning). The point is not that the knowledge gained by one person (for example, that machine guns are not evil) is dangerous and should not have been gained, simply because his companions reject it or fear it. It shows the ignorance of his companions and the need to educate them further.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    Yes and there are plenty of people out there that show no ability to use a car, firearm, bout, motor bike or many other tools. Does that mean we should ban them completely no. should we ask for some training and level of competence, I would argue yes.
    And how do you justify that sort of artificial prerequisite? Even if we accept that such restrictions would be "good for society," whatever that means and whoever determines it, how do you call it right? You must either use a utilitarian evaluation or you must simply decree it to be right by force. There are no other options, and neither of these approaches is compatible with an individual rights-based framework.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    Ok so, mechanically fully automatic weapons are simpler? If you would notice I was talking about operationally. On the flip side it seams that many peoples logic applied to the 1A would make libel and slander completely legal. Actually the perfect world thing does have some credence. Most of our political philosophy and theories exist in the vacuum of a perfect world, that perfect world does not exist, hence we change our reality away from our theories.
    Not that it matters, but machine guns are operationally simpler as well. I was simply pointing out that complexity is irrelevant.

    With regard to libel and slander, that's a topic for another thread. I'll just say that if they were not illegal, they would be far less damaging.

    On the perfect world analogy - focusing on the analogy still misses the point. The point is that neither you nor anyone else possesses the authority to legitimately constrain the rights of another. Your opinion of those rights is really irrelevant in determining whether that person has them. Likewise, the presumed "societal benefit" from restricting or eliminating them is a red herring, because to make use of the argument, you have to coercively infringe on those rights, which cannot be done legitimately.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  15. #105
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,798
    Using 1A, with libel and slander, cannot apply to our logic of FA and the 2A.

    Libel and slander can harm people, there are victims involved. Victims of lies, etc.

    Possessing FA doesn't harm, or potentially harm anyone.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 8th, 2010, 03:09 AM
  2. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 6th, 2010, 02:26 PM
  3. Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 08:23 PM
  4. Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 10:28 PM
  5. Lou Dobbs: Rights under fire
    By BlackPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2009, 05:57 AM

Search tags for this page

bearable arms

,

register select fire weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.