My shotgun is a tool designed, manufactured, and marketed to kill, wound, and maim, sir. A very slight variant of it is used by the military to this day in house to house combat.
I did not mean to imply that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is delusional. I meant that to see it is beyond interpretation is…
Then this is not something that should be easy to obtain, IMHO.
This is a rather absurd argument. Everything is up for interpretation. I’d bet money that a thread on the Dope titled “kittens are cute, confirm/deny?” would have some people arguing against kittens’ inherent cuteness.
Yah I point out a glaring flaw in your argument, and that’s disingenuous on my part.
Does your dodge mean you’re willing to (tacitly) admit that the “need” metric is an absurdity which should be ignored?
Not only was it disputed, but it was disputed in the very post you responded to.
Jesus Christ man, I’m at least trying to fight fair here.
If the Third Amendment dealt with the possession of kittens, I couldn’t care less, for the simple reason that kittens are rarely used during the commission of crimes.
The need to possess a kitten is as ridiculous as the need to posses a firearm. The only difference is the level of potential lethality in the object of desire.
If you honestly don’t see a difference in kitten vs handgun possession, then we have nothing left to talk about.
But it’s the simplest shotgun on the market. Cost $60 to get. Very few moving parts. Over sixty years old.
It’s just very effective at moving little bits of lead very quickly. And I am somewhat surprised you did not reply to my above assertations, and chose only that to reply to.
Once again, what is wrong with killing other human beings? I come from a long line of people who have killed other human beings.
In America alone. French and Indian War. Revolutionary War, Shay’s Rebellion (losing side), War of 1812. Civil War. World War II. (We missed World War I due to an age gap in the direct line. ) Vietnam War. And that doesn’t count the times that an ancestor had to shoot someone for personal reasons. Or knife them. (Carpenter on a clipper ship out to China. Got interesting a few times, I’m told. Actually, I think the family tale is he used a hammer.)
Is there something wrong with all that? Guns can be very good at killing people. I do not deny this at all.
There are a whole lot more. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, fighting words, obscenity, etc.
Note all of them are ostensibly to protect public safety and welfare. So the 2nd Amendment *could *(not that I’m necessarily for it) be interpreted along similar lines; especially when you add in the whole “well-regulated militia” language.
Well, I think most pro-gun folks are well aware that it’s open to interpretation. After all, the anti-gun crowd has been trying for years to use it to interpret the right of individuals to own guns out of existence.
Myself, I think the only serious debate about interpretation revolves around ‘regulate’…i.e. I think it’s reasonable to interpret the 2nd to include the ability of the government to REGULATE individual firearms possession. This would include registration and perhaps even inspection.
What it WOULDN’T include of course is banning. I don’t think there is any way to torture the 2nd to categorically ban firearms…not without throwing the entire Amendment out and doing a do over. Which of course is what SHOULD be done, if, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is no longer relevant today. However, the problem is that the anti-gun crowd haven’t tried to do this…to, you know, actually use the process established here in the US to change things. Amendments can, of course, be repealed…and yet, the gun grabber types have never availed themselves of this process.
Isn’t that curious? And, if YOU were on the other side of a group trying to circumvent the process and take a right away from you through some kind of back door process, how would YOU feel about it? That’s why I tried to coach this in terms you (and others who feel similarly to your views) would understand…such as abortion or Creationism in the schools. Or in terms of the 1st Amendment. It’s obvious that you don’t get why folks would want to own a gun, so to you it’s not a problem. However, try (TRY) to think in terms of something you actually DO care about…then think in terms of some group trying to erode your rights to that using under the table methods.
How about this? What if I decided that porn was bad. Root of all evil and all that. So, I decided I wanted to ban all porn. However, this would be unpopular…a majority of people don’t really want all porn banned. Also, there is that freedom of speech thingy. But…I really think it should be banned. So, I decide to ban some porn that’s unpopular. Say, any porn that has to do with anal or oral sex only…at first. But you can see that my ultimate goal is to ban ALL porn.
So…how do you feel about this? Do you think that it’s cool to bend the 1st to ban a TYPE of porn, as long as I’m not trying (right now) to ban ALL of it? After all, there is no ‘rational need’ for porn (according to the evil psudo-XT), certainly not for porn that has anal or oral sex in it. Of course, having gotten that banned I’ll now move on to other types…
-XT
Which still doesn’t matter. But of course you’ve tried to shift the goalposts by arguing that kittens aren’t guns. Which, of course, wasn’t the point. The point was that merely because something can be argued doesn’t mean that there’s any substance to that argument.
Much like people have pointed out that the 1st should be respected, even though words aren’t guns, either.
Of course, since instead of debating the logic of your position, or attempting to rebut my specific statements on the 2nd, you instead talk about how I can’t attack the underlying logic of your statements because I used an analogy.
I chose not to respond to your assertions re: whether killing human beings is right or wrong because I have a feeling that this is meant only to derail the conversation, and secondly, because you probably already know what I would say to that. If you honestly believe that it is perfectly acceptable, under any circumstances, to kill another human being, then I really don’t know what else to say to you. But I don’t believe that you honestly believe that.
Worrying if true.
I would prefer to have mandatory gun licensing & registration without banning private gun ownership. If this lunacy accomplishes that, great.
I hope that the Congress & state legislatures are somehow smart enough to avoid some strange mix of confiscation on one hand & freedumb-loving anti-registration on the other. But that’s contrary to experience; to date, that mix is exactly what we’ve seen. One state wants no regulation at all, another wants guns to be incredibly hard to acquire, & yet neither patrols the borders to stop interstate flow of unlicensed contraband guns.
Exactly. And yet, one of the purposes of the second amendment is to protect the individual, group, town, or state, against the larger government. Eg, to use a more modern example, so the cops do not execute no-knock warrants against 90 year old women who they have made false claims of drug dealing against. When the government has a monopoly on force, the freedom of the individual suffers.
So, to protect public safety and welfare, to keep the government honest, armed citizens are a good thing.
So… what would you suggest? Mandatory training and safety classes? Or at the least, training and safety classes provided by the government, much like driver’s ed? I’m for that.
I’d shoot Hitler in the face right now if he were in front of me, and it was 1940 or so. Now, he was a human being, but… no, I’m pretty sure I’d shoot him. I wouldn’t enjoy it, but I’d be pretty sure that I’d be making the world a better place.
And I think it’s pretty acceptable, on a less specific level, to shoot enemy soldiers, if you’re in the armed forces of your nation, during a war. Do you disagree with this?
No. My point was that the interpretation of certain things does not matter. It doesn’t matter if kittens are cute, because they are kittens.
Interpretation on whether or not the average citizen should be able to possess a lethal weapon is a lot more important. I am honestly not trying to dodge or evade any questions that you have. If i miss some, I apologize.
Not with one part of it.
Now how is it relevant.
Since it’s pretty obvious that the FF’s did indeed desire for private citizens to have this ability I’m uncertain how it’s open to interpretation from your perspective. You might question how relevant this attitude is TODAY…but I don’t think anyone can seriously say that the FF’s intent at the time the 2nd was drafted was somehow that private citizens should not possess lethal weapons.
-XT
I actually said exactly this a couple posts ago.
If we can agree that the country is much different than it was then, that we are much more prone to violence against our fellow countrymen, then why is it inconceivable that we should look at making firearms harder to get? Admitting that this is something we should consider does not make you anti-gun, it makes you rational and open to change depending on your outside environment, instead of blindly following a pre-established ideology regardless of it’s impact on the abilities of others to do evil.
To be honest, I don’t know enough about the current laws to comment on a level I’d feel comfortable with. Is there a good place on the web that summarizes the various federal and state laws?
Well, you’re the one saying killing human beings is never acceptable. I think it’s perfectly acceptable under a number of circumstances. For example, being in the army. Or, if you are willing to face the legal result of what happens to you for killing said human being, because you are of the strong opinion that said person should be dead. Like, say, if said person you are going to kill is Hitler, ca 1940.
Or if the person is actively trying to kill you. If I’m convinced beyond any reasonable doubt someone is trying to kill me, I’m pretty sure I don’t have a problem with trying to kill them first.
And if that person has an axe, I don’t mind having a shotgun that’s really good at killing people. I have no interest in playing fair in such fashion. If I am of the opinion that someone should be dead right now, I intend to do it in the fastest, most effective, and least likely to fail way I can think of.
Don’t much like the idea of following the path of my great-great-great-great-uncle who got caught by indians, enslaved, and died escaping. Rather not be caught by indians in the first place.
NVM.