Gun "Logic" , The "Right" to Bear Arms?

The arms that we should be allowed to bear are the same arms that any militia would use since the idea is to be able to use them as a militia if needed. What soldiers normally carry are small arms up to and including machine guns. A citizen can buy and own a machine gun but it must have a tax stamp paid.

Most explosives are not allowed mainly due to the danger of storing explosives. There is no danger that a gun will jump out of a safe and shoot someone but if an explosive ignites, even in storage, it can be devastating to neighbors.

 

I agree with most of your points. But to me it sounds like a defeatist attitude,where do you think we would be if the colonist thought that way? most people didn't think we had a chance against the Kings men,but we did.
and if you truly feel that way why would you take the time to post and comments on the site. Either you're concerned citizen that wishes to express his thoughts, or are you 1 of the many "cyber warriors" hired to endorse a defeatist attitude?

 

Capacity limits, yes. I haven't stated a complete opposition to background checks, you just made that up.

What if what I consider to be "reasonable" is different than what you consider to be "reasonable"?

It depends. People have the right to implement laws that make it illegal for others to infringe on their natural rights. People do not have the right to use the law to infringe on other's rights. Banning automobiles would greatly reduce the risk to my life. Do you think I should use the law to ban them?

Again, who gets to decide what is reasonable? You do understand that it is subjective, right?

I'd be happy to, as soon as you back up your statement about research being prohibited.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

"In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability
to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously
owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact"​

I didn't ask a question. I merely relayed to you what the NIJ stated. No, I'm not saying nor have I implied that confiscation would be a good thing.

I find the criteria to be impractical so I oppose it on principle.

Does banning heroin keep it out of the hands of regular citizens? Yes. Does it do the same for criminals? No.

His gun jammed after reloading not while. Sorry, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

Sure, it will reduce the number held by the law abiding. Criminals will have a ready supply.

 

Do you not see the inherent flaws that would be contained in your data? What if someone tries to rob a bank with 50 people inside and is stopped by someone who uses a high cap mag. Would you say that he "saved" 50 lives? Would you attribute that to the high cap mag? What if someone is mugged at knife point and is stopped by someone with a rock? Would you say that the rock saved his life? It is absolutely unquantifiable and ripe for whatever person is doing the research to inject his bias. Using the same data sets, the NRA and Mayor Bloomberg will come up with vastly different conclusions.

People most certainly have been forcibly drowned in swimming pools. So, would you ban slingshots or not?

It would be impossible to say one way or the other, which is why your criteria is faulty at its core.

 

Ouch, guy. I think you have it exactly backwards. Easy to do.

The constitution does give a right to bear arms, as long as we consider militia to be a concept that allows for these days, but I'm not sure that the Left is trying to fight that battle.

And this marriage thing. I don't think marriage IS protected by the Constitution. But if it was, you would have to consider this--You say that the Constitution allows for other "forms" of marriage. Tell me, what definition did the Constitution writers have of the word 'marriage'? You and I both know. They MIGHT have included homosexuals if they had thought of it, but I'm confident they didn't think of it. Therefore, they did NOT "allow for other forms". In fact, since they undoubtedly defined marriage, in their own minds, both individually and collectively, as a man and a woman, they could more likely be interpreted to have meant that NO OTHER "forms" of marriage would be allowed. But that's all assuming that ANY kind of marriage is 'protected'. What in the world are you talking about?

And I don't think you'll find anything about reproductive rights in the Constitution either. Have you ever read the Constitution? It isn't that long, maybe you should.

 

Meta, I just realized that you're parsing my comments and deleting parts that actually address the issue that we were originally discussing. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

I was talking about the amendment to the 14th. I feel like I'm rehashing here... I've argued all of this already. I'm also sure your opinions are set in stone. I'll just say I don't agree that the 2nd amendment should be used in the argument for or against gun control.

 

You're talking to yourself at this point. I'm done with you.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of our free States.

 

Of course you only got it about half right.

Allow me a go, let's recap,

Your position:
-Humans have a natural right to kill, rape, and enslave other human beings. A natural right is anything physically possible.
-Felons somehow "give up" their rights even though things are still physically possible for them. A direct contradiction of the above definition.
-Humans also have a right to life that somehow only exists because it is has to for other rights to exist (or in other words, the cart goes in front of the horse) even though anything physically possible is a right.
-"Rights" only exist when written down by a body calling itself a government except for the aforementioned "natural rights" that encompass everything that is possible within the physical realm.
-"Lives saved" is quantifiable but you can't express how exactly.
-The fact that governments throughout history have murdered, kidnapped, pillaged, and stolen are not good reasons to distrust them.
-The institutions with the resources to adequately research gun control have been prohibited from doing so, but you can't actually substantiate that claim.

-tomf

 

Can you quote the part that says the institutions with the resources to adequately research this issue have been prohibited from doing so?

It wasn't this part was it?

“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”​

Because that doesn't substantiate your claim at all.

 

This 2008 SCOTUS decision ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia".

 

I'm sorry, how exactly does that mean that the institutions with the resources to adequately research this issue have been prohibited from doing so? And how many institutions have the resources that you're talking about? Also, what kind of resources do you contend are required to adequately research this issue?

 

The Joyce Foundation is putting up 14 million to promote gun control. Instead of politicizing it, they could use that 14 million towards research but the research is counter productive since our rights are protected in the first place so the whole effort has to be political instead of research based.

 

There is nothing in our Second Amendment that secures rights in private property.

 

Exactly right. The claim that "research is prohibited" is a bald-faced lie perpetuated by the gun control lobby and is eaten up with a spoon without question by their minions.

 

So is it your position that tax money should be used by public institutions to promote gun control? That is the only thing that is prohibited so that must be what you're objecting to.

Research on the issue is most definitely not prohibited. The claim is absurd and if it were true the ACLU would be having a field day.

 

copied and pasted..............I have one simple question for you , Dan............is there anyone in here that has acknowledged your points, however disjointed they are? Maybe I should ask them, instead of you. I wouldn't get a straight answer out of you for even that...............

 

And this is why nothing can be accomplished. Statements like this. If you go strictly by a constitutional reading, there should be no restrictions on ANY weapons. Period. I should have he right to own an M1 tank and an F22 if I wanted to, fully armed.

Of course, no sane rational person believes that, but none the less, the constitution allows no restrictions on he right to bear arms.

But of course we DO restrict the right to bear arms. But for some reason, the second someone talks about re-structurinfg these laws, someone screams at the top of their lungs that the liberals are out to take all the guns away from everyone of every type. Which obviously they are not, but everyone on the right screams thats the goal.

 

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. I thought you claimed to have an argument? Can you show how our Second Amendment secures any rights in private property?