asked and answered 100 times in this thread. I'm done playing your games. all your stupidity warrants is a simple reminder that I've already refuted your argument
Why so many objections to show the line of reasoning that enables commutation of specific terms, into other terms not found in that same, social Contract?
Do you think that we should have the right to carry any kind of protection? I agree that Americans should have the fundamental right to self-defense. The government shouldn't interfere, in most cases, by taking away our right to carry weapons. Perhaps a world where everyone carried a gun would be safer, as long as everyone understood the responsibility that carrying a gun entails. My only concern with unrestricted gun carrying is the potential for things to get out of hand. An enraged punch to the face doesn't have the lasting repercussions of simply pulling a trigger. I think that people overestimate their ability to control themselves and that, under the right circumstances, carrying a lethal weapon, even if originally intended for self-defense, can be very dangerous. I also don't really see the necessity of assault rifles. Can someone justify the need for a full auto or even semi-auto AR? Beyond the right to revolution I can't think of any reason why someone would need an automatic weapon. Rifles and handguns should be adequate for self-defense and hunting. I think the potential for mass devastation outweighs the joy of shooting an automatic weapon.
I suggest you refrain from projecting your own lack of self-control onto others. Seeing the right to possess such weapons cannot reasonably be questioned, better you should justify your request for for justification.
I'm not saying that everyone who carries a firearm is incapable of controlling their anger or that every dispute might end in death. On the whole, I think people who carry guns take pride in their weapon and understand the serious responsibility of carrying a firearm. However, guns make it easier to commit a crime of passion, in comparison to most weapons. People make rash, dumb decisions all the time, especially if alcohol is involved. Because guns are such a powerful weapon, the consequences of misuse are much higher. I'm not sure if I think any action should be taken to limit gun carrying. I just find it somewhat disconcerting and don't necessarily feel safer because people are carrying guns. Regardless of how well-trained and responsible people are, there are inherent risks to carrying a gun. What do you mean "the right to possess such weapons cannot reasonably be questioned"? There are better, or at least sufficient, weapons for hunting and self-defense that are not automatic. ARs are fun for recreational use but they are designed to efficiently kill people. This means that if they are misused they can become weapons of mass murder. I was honestly just asking why someone would need, rather than simply desire, an automatic assault rifle. Is the underlying reason because we need the freedom to defend ourselves from the government? I can assure you ARs would not stand a chance against US military tanks, planes, and turrets. It's "reasonable" to ask about the purpose of an assault rifle. I don't think the only justification for owning one should be "because its a constitutional right." There are good reasons for the second amendment and I'm just wondering the reasoning behind owning a fully automatic weapon, in light of the fact that they can cause massive devastation.
That's your problem. Is English your second language? Then don't buy automatic weapons, and mind your own damn business. So essentially, you think an unalienable right can be abridged because there are risks associated with its exercise. Have you ever stopped to think there are comparable risks associated with, e.g., freedom of the press? And I'm asking why the hell it's any of your business. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising didn't stand much of a chance against the Nazis either, but every Nazi they killed or kept engaged there was one that wasn't aiding the Nazi cause elsewhere. Why the hell should anyone care?
Thanks for you help, there were a lot of constructive responses in that last post. If your response is "why the hell should anyone care" why do you bother responding. I can't reason with someone who is unwilling to even engage in an intelligent discussion. I agree that, for the most part, its not the government's business to regulate guns. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind your positions. I'm not trying beat you in an argument or prove you wrong. Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal...and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" By saying that the right to bear arms is an unalienable right you are asserting that God gives us the right to carry guns. Currently, I agree that Americans deserve the right to own and use guns but the right to bear arms is not a fundamental human right like equality and freedom of speech. Obviously, there are risks involved in everything we do and in many ways "the pen is mightier than the sword." Though freedom of the press has the potential to cause violence and unrest, it can also lead to enlightenment and help to dispel ignorance. An assault weapon can be really fun but it can also kill people. Its not fair to compare the right of free speech to the right of owning an automatic weapon. The risks and rewards are not the same. Because I'm trying to discuss this issue. If you're just going to dismiss everything that doesn't perfectly align with your views, why are you on this forum? This actually is a pretty solid point (still Godwin's law). I'm not sure I'd equate the US government with Nazi Germany but you make a valid argument in the sense that during a rebellion every tactical advantage is important. The Middle East has been pretty successful in thwarting our military efforts without super sophisticated weaponry. Still, its hard to imagine the need for rebellion arising anytime soon and there are current shootings being perpetrated with automatic weapons.
How ever did you reach your conclusion? DC v. Heller established, by implication, that only a well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, even as Individuals.
Because your mindset is inimical to the principles which make this country worth living in, and it is imperative that its intellectual and moral bankruptcy be exposed in no uncertain terms. And how have you come to this conclusion, exactly? You underestimate the risk by plenty, since a free press is just as free to support a despotic regime as it is to support the Franklins and Jeffersons of the world. Do you think any reporter in 1776 would have had the opportunity to enlighten anyone about the outrages perpetrated by the King had the American revolutionaries not been armed to the teeth? No, it's unfair to arbitrarily attribute such a trivial value to firearms as you do. Then try to do so intelligently. So far you're not doing very well in that regard. Neither would I equate the Weimar Republic with Nazi Germany, but it didn't take very long at all for the former to become the latter. That's because you're not paying attention to the outrages perpetrated by the spiritual descendant of King George who currently occupies the White House.
The only way to clearly define unalienable rights is to discern the will of God. Whether you believe the forefathers accurately granted those rights is a matter of opinion, so no matter what you or I say on this issue, ultimately it is an opinion. Let me just say that guns always lead to violence. Even when its use is justified and necessary, the use of a gun results in bloodshed and death. Freedom of speech is not directly correlated to death in the same way as guns. Their fundamental difference is that while equality and freedom of speech promote free thinking and peace, when a gun is used it results in injury and loss of life. Ideally a gun shouldn't have to be used and Americans should have the right to own and carry a gun. However, its not the same moral right as the right to human equality and free thought. Freedom of speech allows people to make their own decisions and think for themselves. Despotic regimes don't gain power and manipulate people through free press. Despotic regimes suppress opposition. A free press is "free" to support a despotic regime but if there is true oppression and tyranny, the people will cry out for change. Literature can give people new perspectives, but truly free press will never indoctrinate civilians or make them ignorant. I completely agree. Guns are entirely necessary when you have a cause worth fighting for, whether it be to support a revolution or for self-defense. I'm just saying that, in peace time, the necessity of automatic weaponry can be called into question because it is capable of committing mass murder. You aren't using your AR to protect your freedom of speech. What is its purpose? I'd be willing to bet you don't let it sit in a closet and wait for the day when the need to revolt arises. That doesn't mean you don't have a legitimate reason for wanting one, but could you please explain why you need an automatic weapon as opposed to a handgun or hunting rifle? I don't have a problem with most firearms. I see that they have real value. I'm just not sure I see the necessity of automatic weapons. If you offered some real reasons why you need an AR maybe I would change my mind. I'm not calling for widespread government intervention or really any government involvement at all. However, you must acknowledge that guns have the potential for misuse and that sometimes collective freedom means limiting the rights of individuals (you can't shout fire in a theater). So you want to start a revolution? How would that improve America's situation? I'm guessing you didn't vote for Obama.
So you don't understand what unalienable rights are. Thanks for clearing that up. Only to people who don't understand what unalienable rights are. Speaking of opinions, thank you for this glaring evidence that yours is worthless. The first doesn't at all. The second may or may not, depending on how it's used - just as with firearms. It can just as easily be used to achieve precisely the opposite end, as the last half century or so clearly demonstrates to anyone with a lick of sense. You're really not paying attention. And just what the hell good is that when they have no means of enforcing a demand for change? To be sure - just look at Mein Kampf. So you think the first amendment only applies to a "truly free" press. Have I got that about right? Sure it can, by people who care nothing for freedom. Of course I could. I merely choose not to, since it's none of your damn business. No, I want decent Americans to be ready for one. By putting healthy fear in the minds of government agents. Neither did anyone else with more than half a brain.
Paragraph (2) proves my point and my argument. Only a well regulated militia is traditionally exempted from those restrictions which are meant for persons, specifically unconnected with militia service.
Please...please.....show us some mercy and don't feed the insanity.......... I'll repent all of my infractions to you.........I'll get all of my exterior trim primed this week..promise.......please, don't feed him...........
how can i be "refuted" when paragraphs (2) supports my argument that only a well regulated militia is traditionally exempted from State laws regarding gun control that are meant for Individuals of the People who are specifically, unconnected with militia service; in actual practice in our republic.
