The purpose of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is to protect rights, not grant them. If you really examine the Bill of Rights, you will see that they are restrictions placed on the government.
The United States was founded with the principles of individual freedom, liberty and inalienable rights.
To be honest, I wouldn’t have posted the way I have had Finn not make that crack about feeding me lard and dressing me. Or JX’s sarcastic one-liner about describing his situations.
Just horrible, isn’t it?
You invent false-to-facts rationalizations about guns, support politicians who have already been shown to be ignorant or lying through their teeth (with the justification that you just can’t be bothered to read the actual legislation or learn about the guns it regulates), support the destruction of part of the Bill of Rights without recourse to due process or a further amendment, claim that you can remove other Americans’ constitutionally protected rights due to their lacking “necessity”, then change your tone and add “danger” to the absurd metric of “necessity”, ignoring all the while that so-called “assault weapons” have a wide range of perfectly valid uses that cannot be replaced by other firearms. And all that while refusing to do even the basic background research to find out what the heck you’re talking about.
And then someone goes and points out what your own arguments would mean if they were applied to you instead of other people.
Why, you want to try to force someone else to supplement their family’s food budget by hunting with a hand gun instead of a rifle or defend their home with a hand gun that is likely to over penetrate walls and kill family members rather than a semi automatic shotgun with a comfortable grip, but if someone suggests that you don’t need things like factory farming which isn’t “necessary” and does damage to the environment, or wear clothes which require the diversion of economic resources and arable land which could be put to better use, or use fossil fuels instead of riding a horse and buggy to work?
Why, it’s just downright offensive!
What, do they really think that you’re on the same level as those whose rights you’re trying to strip? Sure everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others. And your argument is only for why you should be allowed to ignore the US Constitution when it comes to those people, but you should enjoy a life free from undue coercive measures. And it’s just not fair, in any case! Your arguments are only for other people.
I’m only responding to this by way of explanation. Your manners were atrocious, get over it. I’m glad I made you upset to the point where your so-called arguments seem to be coming from the frothing mouth of a quivering psychopath. If you been more civil, perhaps this debate would have gotten somewhere.
Yes yes, keep lying as if it was true. How many times must I post that necessity was only one criteria for judging? If you’re not going to even read what I write then kindly excuse yourself from the debate
No, they cannot, because man needs more than sacks and bland food. Besides, those things are hardly dangerous by themselves, and they also serve many other purposes. Its the same reason why gun control is a good idea and knife control is not
Post some sources. You’ve been the only one harping on others without so much as a link. Where’s your source? Wheeeerrrrrreeeeeeee? I’m clicking wildly in the vain hope that it’s invisible, maybe I’ll get lucky! Hey source, where are you? Yoo hoo, Mr. link! Come here so I can click you!!! ;)
Wow, what a wild rant! Let me see if I can distill the relevent parts…
Its irrelevent that those guns are rarely used in crimes. Only 2 nukes have ever been used for offense in the history of the world. (I’ll spare you the rhetoric “Does that mean everyone should have them?”)
Numerous uses all relating to shooting something. Yes, hunting game, home protection, self-defense, war re-enactments, collections, are all part of “numerous” uses. Most of them also fall under the category of “putting a hot piece of lead through another being”. Your “numerous” uses are bunk; they are the same use. When a gun becomes a kitchen utensil like a knife, then we’ll evaluate how relevent it is to keep something like that around for other uses.
Rhinos. Hey, that was sarcasm I think your problem is that the comment was meant to illustrate shooting game, and I showed you that you don’t need an Ak-47 to do that. You can have your rifles for game hunting, I’m not worried about that as much as easily concealable handguns, or assault weapons capable to killing a lot of people really fast. We should still regulate them, but to a different extent
Contitutional rights can be changed. I’ve already provided examples in which rights like speech are regulated, and how rights can already be said to have been denied in cases of large bombs. Gun control is merely the same thing
Just you You seem to have little control over your emotions
“Every weapon is dangerous” is a pointless non-sequitor intended to bolster your argument with weasel words and mindless rhetoric. Yes, duh, weapons are dangerous, but that’s not why I want gun control. Hell, every THING is dangerous, from plastic bags you can choke on to a necklace that can get caught. Your commentary will win you no adherents, except the stupid
Assault weapons are useful in self defense? Yeah, sure, if you’re defending the president. What, a robber busts into your house and you aim the minigun at his face? You routinely strap AK47’s to you back when you go to Burger King? You do NOT need assault weapons for defense, you can use a handgun. And with hunting, there are slower firing, less concealable guns you can use that pose less danger to other people. Even those guns should be restricted to actual hunters. And I guess your comment about handguns makes you an enthusiastic supporter of handgun control, right? Surely you couldn’t be saying that and then want to do nothing about them (except have more assault weapons on you)
Right, repeat something long enough and people will start to buy it. Have you illustrated ANY other legitimate use for assault weapons other than self-defense (which can be done with handguns) and hunting (which also do not need certain types of assault weapons)? Hell, I gave you your silly war re-enactment groups, you likely didn’t even know about that because you were too busy finding new things to blow away
I want a nuke for protection. Its never been used for something illegal and its not often used. So it would be ok right??? :rolleyes:
As a mod has already pointed out that your behavior fits the definition of trolling, I’m going to respond to you only in the Pit thread that was started for you. Like all the discussion and links of the DoJ statistics, you seem to have missed that, too.
Pots calling kettles black. You, repeatedly, say the same things which have been proven false.
No he doesn’t.
Guns are not dangerous by themselves, either.
Actually, I’ve been citing it throughout this thread too. It was in Post Number 9.
Fucks sake, read the thread.
Apples and Oranges.
What you’re talking about is restricting rights without added safety, what you’re talking about is worse than trading freedom for safety, it’s trading freedom for nothing.
Knives all have numerous uses all related to cutting something, we should ban them too.
No, they are different.
Easily Concealable hand guns aren’t covered in this bill, at all.
Assault Weapons are not capable of killing a lot of people really fast, they are the exact same as non-assault weapons, this has been repeated over and over and over and yet you still can’t understand it. This is obviously an attempt to enrage, and it would be nice if you’d stop.
Guns are already regulated, you can’t own one if you have a felony.
Bombs and guns are clearly not the same thing, as has been repeatedly stated, this false analogy does nothing but show how foolish your argument is.
Stop trolling, please. It’s become tiresome. You’re not a Jedi and it’s not your job to lead us from the dark side.
Do you know the definition of Non-Sequitor? OR Weasel Words?
You’ve been repeating things like ‘firing really fast’ and ‘killing a lot of people really fast’ and you still haven’t cited a source.
Flaming & insulting won’t help your argument.
Once again, you’ve shown an extreme lack of understanding as to what an assault weapon is.
This isn’t an assault weapon. This is an assault weapon. Do you know the difference? This stock.
Some people are unable to grip standard stocks on shotguns, they need the pistol grip due to wrist mobility issues.
HANDGUNS ARE LESS EFFECTIVE HOME DEFENSE WEAPONS WHICH ARE MORE LIKELY TO PENETRATE INTO NEIGHBORING ROOMS.
How many times does it need to be said before you understand it?
Once again, you fail to understand.
Assault Rifles have nothing to do with concealability.
Those are the same uses for any other firearm, plus target shooting.
How many legitimate uses are there for pencils? Only one. That’s three less than I’ve put forth for firearms, so we should ban pencils.
I miss the point you are trying to make here. The Constitution lists various things the government it not allowed to infringe on without good reason (for instance freedom of speech is not absolute).
So then, where in the Constitution is the government forbidden from regulating hi-cap magazines?
Alexander Hamilton:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Looks like he was arguing against the notion of the Bill of Right. Looks like he lost his argument and we got a Bill of Rights.
And you can argue all day that the government does not have the power to do this or that (some people say they do not have the power to tax…but taxed you are). The government can and does exercise the control Hamilton seems to think it doesn’t have. The Bill of Rights mentions the right to bear “arms” without defining that. There are lots of things that fall under the umbrella of “arms” that are restricted or forbidden to the average citizen. Things I haven’t even seen the NRA try to argue they should be allowed to have. Along these lines a hi-cap magazine seem they could be likewise restricted and pass Constitutional muster today.
You seem to think in much the same as I do (some would call me a liberal). We should not be (and I don’t think we are) required to prove we have a right or privilege. We do not have to make a case as to why we should be allowed to do something. Rather, the government should have to prove with a compelling arument, why that right or privilege should be curtailed or controlled.
Speaking of a lack of control: You have already been told that your behavior is out of line. I’m not interested in your rationalizations for why you have to hit other folks back first.
This is a Warning that if you do not stop insulting posters in Great Debates you are going to jeopardize your posting rights on this board.
You have yet to prove why high capacity magazines should be banned. Simply stating they “wouldn’t be protected by the bill of rights,” doesn’t cut it. Neither is abortion, if you’ll notice.
However, the Argument of Alexander Hamilton against the bill of rights shows characterization as to what the scope and intent of the bill of rights is. So when you say “XXX isn’t specified in the bill of rights,” your argument is inherently flawed in that the bill of rights recognizes rights that we are inherently endowed with, it doesn’t grant them to us, and the bill of rights is an enumeration of specific ones of those rights, not an all encompassing list of them.
The Ninth Amendment contains the Enumeration Clause which basically says the enumerated rights are not a comprehensive list so that is covered.
And waaay earlier in this thread I did spell out why I thought hi-cap magazines could be looked at as an appropriate place for restrictions. The pro-gun crowd did their usual smoke-and-mirror tricks. E.g. Since there was no definitive evidence this would help it should not be done (despite logic and some early results that suggested it might have an impact). Or, the one I really liked, was it being trivial for a criminal to reload so this would have no impact but by god if someone breaks into their house they damn well better be able to have a 15-round (or whatever) capacity magazine or be at the mercy of those criminals who have hi cap magazines! Apparently criminals can reload quickly and it is trivial for them but homeowners defending themselves cannot do the same. :rolleyes:
I did my job, read back if you want to see it and of course duck and weave to avoid the conclusion because it is not 100%, set-in-stone, proven beyond a doubt way to totally eliminate all crime in the US while avoiding the imminent massacre of law abiding homeowners subject to less ammo in their guns being at the mercy of criminals and as such has no merit for discussion. And even if all that was true it is still your god given right to have hi cap magazines so screw-it all anyway.
Actually, the point being made was that when a gun owner in his home leaves his bedroom, he probably doesn’t have three magazines on him, in a belt (which is what facilitates speedy, unhindered reloading), nor should he be forced to.
OTH, a criminal who is gearing up for a slaughter/gun fight would.
If it would significantly impact crime, or stop deaths, I’d be open to hearing it.
The problem is, your argument lacks merit. You’ve failed to address the points made to you throughout the thread. Sorry, my mistake was in assuming you had come up with something new.
When I said “You have yet to prove why,” it was not because I was unaware of your previous arguments, it’s because they failed the test of “is this a logical and reasonable restriction on the people, and does it provide a suitable benefit for what the population gives up?”
His point was that talk about “constitutional rights” or “second amendment rights” gives people the idea that if you modify the constitution or second amendment you could modify rights.
Looks like Hamilton was correct.
And the issue is not that the government does not have the power to infringe our rights, it’s that they do not have the authority. You may modify the Constitution to give government the power to vacate our rights, but you would simultaneously vacate the legitimacy of the government by leading it to claim an authority it cannot possess.
I can think of several handguns that come with various accessories-- including a dual magazine holster. So you have one in the gun and two in the mag-holster. That’s three. No data on who actually wears all that kit.
Or a criminal might just illegally modify the follower in a limited-capacity magazine so it’s normal capacity again. Though I suppose there is a chance that murdering someone with bullets from an illegal magazine might offend the moral sensibilities of a criminal. :dubious:
If we were all kept in pens like animals it would be much harder for us to commit crimes… but you probably recognize that such measures to reduce crime, or stop deaths, have an unacceptable cost.
Having freedom means accepting the risk that some will misuse that freedom. Crime, or death, is the price we pay for living freely.
In other words, the Second Amendment has been routinely ignored because we can’t imagine how a modern society could obey it to the letter; so let’s ignore it some more?
Sorry, but to my mind this is like how the States regarded indian reservations within their borders. For decades the state governments enforced state laws and regulations on the reservations because the whole “indian nations” thing was a moribund legal fiction. Then a whole bunch of court rulings towards the end of the 20th century said “yes, the tribes are nations; no- the reservations are NOT under state authority; and yes, those old treaties mean what they say and are legally binding”.