Printable View
And I am asking you for your definition of "infringe". I am also asking you to explain to me how the government can currently restrict private ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons. I am asking you to explain the legality of CA's magazine capacity restrictions and Clinton's expired "assault weapons" ban. Please explain what makes you think the Second Amendment cannot be repealed?
If the government were to enact laws that by their very nature are unconstitutional, such as doing away with the 2nd amendment, and then issue search warrants based on the new unconstitutional laws and then use force to disarm the populace the people who support these actions would be enemies of the constitution. It is at this point that We the People will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Killing the "citizens" under these circumstances is Murder not "justifiable homicide".Quote:
Originally Posted by 38special
Again, I do not mean to offend you in any way.
Please by all means, quote back to me were I was "creating straw men".Quote:
Originally Posted by 38special
I understand where you stand on gun control that is why I posted earlier that you and I are not having the same argument.
If the Second Amendment is repealed and "We the People shall not keep or bear arms" is it's replacement, then the warrants would not be unconstitutional. The homicides would only be murder if a government exists to prosecute...if the killings are in response to the government's bidding then they would be justifiable in the only eyes that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy
"By the way, you can not be "100% pro gun" if you believe that the government is allowed to disarm the populace simply because the government wants to. There is nothing pro gun about that."Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy
I never said I believed that. "Because the government wants to" is not the same as "because new laws were create and voted on by representatives of the people".
"So now you are saying that the government is all-powerful and has the authority to murder the populace at will if the populace disagrees with the government. WOW!"
I never said that. I said if the government creates new laws, and you fight enforcement with deadly force, then the the government would be justified in killing you. The government is only as powerful as we allow them to be. If "we" continue to push gun control and allow them to vote in new firearm legislation then "we" are giving them that power.
"Do you know about the big buildings where they keep all the books? It's call a library. Please go to one and start reading."
"If you or anyone else you know paid for any part of your education, then you should demand a refund."
Condescending, attempted insult, and argumentative.
You forgot to list a very "key" reason. An "AR" is no different really from "any" other semi-automatic gun, in that it takes a magazine and fires with each pull of the trigger. It automatically loads the next round into the chamber. So..... other than looks and it's easier to put add on's onto it .... how is it really different than most other semi-auto rifles. In terms of caliber, a .223 isn't even allowed for hunting in many states.... so it is NOT more powerful than hunting rifles, etc.
So....... once you open that door, as some Dem's have suggested...... why not ban "all" semi-auto rifles ? Afterall, why not ? There are those that want to ban all of them. There are those that do NOT want you to own any semi-automatic rifles , and / or handguns.
What next ?
The other, it is not anymore "dangerous" and even "less" dangerous than many other semi's , etc. COULD be...... so, where does it stop.
Then... there is that pesky "2nd Amendment" , that says we do have a RIGHT to own them, despite what the Govt may think.
The "ONLY " reason they were able to sell automatics as not being sold to civilians were, they were made specifically for the military for warfare.... and there wasn't a good arguable reason to have one in civilian life as far as they were concerned.
But .... I would argue... an AR, is nothing but another "semi-automatic" ..... no major difference than other semi-automatics. .... and only the "looks" is what gets them excited. So, are we going to ban guns based upon how they look ?
In many of these shootings.... they could have gone in and done just as much damage with semi-auto shotguns.... should they go after them too ? Or , just plain old shotguns for that matter.
If you don't stand up now, at what point will you ?
Plus.... this AWB .... they have a clause in it, that the USA Atty Gen at their discretion can ADD ANY GUN they deem appropriate to the ban. PERIOD ... no review by Congress or any other part of Govt what-so-ever. Do you want to give the carte blanche to do that ?
Infringe - to commit a breach or infraction ofQuote:
Originally Posted by 38special
Everything you mentioned is an infringement upon a Right which shall not be infringed. The government has overstepped the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the people let it happen.
I never ever said or thought that the government cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment. They most certainly can. When they do, they will no longer be the government. They will at that point be individual people who are enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
See post #68Quote:
Originally Posted by 38special
You are ill-informed about what a "straw man" is. This one you will have to look up on your own. Good night or rather good morning...Im going to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 38special
That was my point exactly. They are already doing it and they aren't going to stop. Simply stomping our feet and yelling about our rights isn't going to stop the train. We need to offer healthy, intelligent rebuttals to the anti-gun political faction in order to gain any foothold. Unfortunately, discussing overthrowing the government and taking guns from cold, dead hands is even worse to them.Quote:
Infringe - to commit a breach or infraction of
Everything you mentioned is an infringement upon a Right which shall not be infringed. The government has overstepped the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the people let it happen.
I would argue that they will, in fact, be the government. The people elected them and the people allow them to continue doing what they're doing. The U.S. was founded for the people and by the people; if the people want the Second Amendment repealed! and the proper steps are taken, then it is, by definition, constitutional.Quote:
I never ever said or thought that the government cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment. They most certainly can. When they do, they will no longer be the government. They will at that point be individual people who are enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
Description of Straw ManQuote:
Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
And yet, an attack on a poor understanding of what constitutes a threat is what's hurting us all, with this liberty-hating, anti-gun, anti-feature-X hatred going on. Which brings us back (hopefully) to good reasons to oppose the AWB push. Pretty please ... both of you??Quote:
Originally Posted by 38special
We're not the enemy. The enemy is out there.
the assault rifle looks evil but is not the most used killer out in america
the number one killing machine gun on the streets of america is
the
22 pistol...... the cheap little junky 22 is a killing machine
yet not a person on MSNBC or CNN even mentions it
My number one answer wasn't given as a choice... BECAUSE THEY ARE FUN!!!
Better hurry up, it's tomorrow ain't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet