Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by modernpaladin, Feb 17, 2020.

  1. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AR-15 didn't exist in your limited 18th century limitation to 2A

    You seem to be all over the place on this topic.
    Are arms limited to what existed in 18th century or NOT??
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  2. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. But then many can’t tell the difference between an AR15 and a Ruger 10/22 fitted after market with a polymer stock and 25 rnd mag nor that the afore mentioned guns are mechanically similar in function.
     
  3. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When has a car ever been considered an arm?

    You realize, something that can be weaponized is not an arm. A bomb, is an arm. An automobile, not so much.
     
  4. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What make you think a civilian cannot own a claymore, a grenade, a canon, or even a tank?
     
  5. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not going to respond to the nuclear comparison. It's a red herring argument.

    Even the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment covers weapons used by the military.

    And the printed word printed with an 18th century printing press is the only words protected by freedom of the press.
     
  6. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely. Times change. Nothing in the world is ever set in stone for millions and millions of years. Or thousands and thousands of years. Or hundreds and hundreds of years. The only constant in the world is change.


    What's legal or not also changes with the times. And laws are subjective. Just like personal opinions are subjective.

    Very poor justification for 100 round mags. You don't know the situation in every case to have happened or will happen.

    Every situation is not the same as the Pules Nightclub.
    Anecdotal evidence to support a claim is baseless.

    I don't see how hundreds of drunks in a bar with loaded guns is safer to the public overall.
     
  7. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Opinion at this point.
    Are you saying you can own a claymore? An active grenade? How about a bomb? Can you and I own all of them?
     
  8. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Two paths, a class III FFL or Federal registration of each device as a ‘Destructive Device’. Despite the federal registration method, some states have enacted their own bans. Even if you have a class III or manufactures license, each device must be separately registered.
    BTW, all three, are not that difficult to DIY, except, that places the maker in the category of a manufacturer, which requires a federal license. Taking a WWII deactivated grenade (often sold as a paper weight type curio) is fairly easy to arm, but doing so makes you a manufacture, subject to license requirements and each devise must be separately registered.
    People often ask if you can own a cannon or a tank, and you can, subject to local zoning and laws concerning transporting on public ways. However, each projectile must be registered as a Destructive device.
    Just over the border in Wisconsin near Kenosha on the Visible on the West side of the expressway are several WWII/Korea vintage Tanks, field pieces, and other tracked vehicles, all privately owned.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  9. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, restrictions.
    I think that's what the majority of those wanting to reduce arms violence is looking for. Restrictions. Not all out bans. Sure there's a few.
    But we'll never outright ban arms. But we already invoke restrictions.

    Does the 2A say restrictions are against the constitution?
    It does say, we all can own arms without infringement. Restrictions seem like an infringement to me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for restating the facts .
    Now, address the questions:
    WHY is the fact you cannot use your gun to commit murder not a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms?
    WHY does "arms", as used in the 2nd have specific meanings that doesn't include everything that can be used as a weapon?
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scary! Scary!!!! SCAAARY!!!!
     
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the united state supreme court in the Heller, McDonald and most recently Caetano decisions, such is of no relevance. The second amendment is not limited to technology that existed at the time of the ratification of the united states constitution.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
     
  13. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some have.
    And the one I posting this to says he/she has NO limits to the 2A.
    But then keeps bringing up what was back in 18th century. So to me, that means the no limit poster actually has more limits than he/she has already set limits on.

    IMO, per 2A words, there are no infringements of any type on any type of arms.
    But, we all know, we all have limits to some arms.

    We all have different lines in the sand.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  14. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It won't work. Its just that theres ther one way to prove it.
     
  15. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    If I go into a restaurant and order a steak and they bring me fish, why is that not the same thing? Please explain why fish is not steak. Sure you could... but why the hell would you have to? If there's any person in such a discussion who doesn't know the difference then they just don't belong in the conversation.

    I'm done with you. Your questions are seriously idiotic and you just keep repeating them ad nauseum... and now I am nauseous of trying to deal with you.
     
  16. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess I don’t see society as a test tube nor a right something negotiate away.
     
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fact is, you know you cannot answer them.
    Because you do not understand the right to keep and bear arms.
     

Share This Page