Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: macman
a reply to: vor78

I completely agree. But this is highlighting the issue in the debate. For the militias and people of the US to stand it's ground against the government, we would have to have access to all sorts of nasty toys. The government has nukes, ICBM's, drones and a variety of other armaments that we simply cannot have.

And rightfully so. We do not need those types of things in the hands of everyday, average Americans.

Now you might say that those are not armaments, and I would disagree. By the terms very definition, that's what they are.

That's why I believe the term needs to be spelled out very specifically because we can argue all day about what is or is not "arms" and if one individuals interpretation of the term does not coincide with another individuals interpretation, yet their interpretation supersedes that of the other, you have just infringed on his 2nd amendment right.

See the slippery slope here? If the 2nd amendment is not further defined you leave it up to interpretation. If someone's interpretation becomes law and if someone disagrees with that interpretation, their 2nd amendment right has been infringed upon.

By forcing me to adhere to your interpretation of what is or is not "arms" you have violated my 2nd amendment right.

a reply to: introvert

Actually it hasn't been violated. "Arms" is the key. Now, you are talking about letter of the law and spirit of the law.

a reply to: Answer

Then you use the old "well England banned guns and now people don't get shot."

Perhaps you meant to respond to another member, because I have never said anything about England or anything of the sort.

You keep repeating the "I'm a gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment" line while simultaneously employing the exact same tactics used by anti-gunners. Just stop. At this point, you should embrace your anti-gun brethren and quit pretending to be a "reasonable gun owner."

Well, it's true. I am a gun owner and I do support the 2nd amendment. Would you rather I lied?

You're highlighting a major problem within this entire 2nd amendment debate and that is that many of the hardcore 2nd amendment people believe that only people who believe exactly as they believe are true 2nd amendment proponents.

We saw this earlier when Mac pulled out the obligatory 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy.

"Real 2nd amendment folks only believe X".

Give me a break. Then you wonder why the anti-gun folks call you ignorant rednecks that cling to their bible and guns?

You cannot find one thing that I have said that could be considered anti-gun. You guys just keep pigeonholing me because I said that I was open to the discussion and that there are some things that people just should not arm themselves with.

I could care less whether or not you believe me, or if you like my approach on the issue. I have my second amendment right and since it's vague as hell, I get to interpret it as I see fit.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

Actually it hasn't been violated. "Arms" is the key. Now, you are talking about letter of the law and spirit of the law.

I thought that was the point. You said "shall not be infringed". No buts, and's or if's....letter of the law.

When I take the same literal approach, you say that I'm not following the spirit of the law?

Ok, which goalposts am I supposed to aim for? They seem to move around quite a bit.

Can you comment on the rest of my post? Should Americans have the same weapons as the government? If so I want my mini-nuke. If not, where does it say in the constitution that I can't and who gets to set those standards?

ETA: Where in the constitution does it define "arms"? If it doesn't who defines it and what gave them the authority to do so?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Indigo5

Again, Sweden has some of the most liberal gun laws in the western world and their crime statistics are staggeringly low. There is no rational correlation between the violence inherent in a society and access to firearms. None.

Hmmm? What do you consider Liberal Gun Laws???

He meant Switzerland, not Sweden.

Source

I love Switzerland!

Everyone gets to keep a 'assault' weapon, and every home has a fallout shelter.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: macman

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people the ability to defend or overthrow tyrannical government, no doubt about that.

Obviously, people do not need to have access to the same destructive armaments that governments currently have.

Am I the only one that sees the disconnect between these two sentences from the same post? How does one propose to defend from or overthrow a tyrannical government without weapons parity? Sure, it CAN be done, but I would presume it makes it a lot tougher.

This appears to me to be a very good illustration, if not the outright definition, of "cognitive dissonance".

a reply to: nenothtu

Am I the only one that sees the disconnect between these two sentences from the same post?

Nope that is the Mount Everest of cogintive dissonance for a myriad of reasons.

Gun Walker,Fast and Furious.

And the arming of our so called 'allies' in the middle east to overthrow their governments.

In a nutshell guns, and 'assualt' weapons are bad, but only in the Americans hands.

Anyone else ?

That's spreading 'freedom, and democracy' my friend.

a reply to: nenothtu

Unless that person believes that the people should have never let the government obtain those armaments in the first place. I don't believe they should, nor the people.

If the 2nd amendment allows for the people to obtain the same weaponry as the government to defend itself under tyrannical government, should we arm the people with all of those nasty toys i described earlier?

I don't think so.

Should we take away from the military and government those weapons that we would not reasonably allow the public to posses? If so, what ramifications could come to our national security and safety?

Catch 22, is it not?

Thus, it all comes back to my original point. The 2nd amendment is vague and needs to be updated to be much more specific. This isn't the 1700's anymore and must be updated to reflect the current state of weaponry and technology.

originally posted by: Indigo5

No value to background checks? Is there no value to having laws by which to arrest gun dealers who run guns to gangs? Or laws by which to confiscate guns legally possessed?

Did you really mean to say you want laws to "confiscate guns legally possessed", or was that a Freudian slip?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: nenothtu

Unless that person believes that the people should have never let the government obtain those armaments in the first place. I don't believe they should, nor the people.

Basing one's life on what one wishes or believes "should be" rather than on what IS is one of the more common reasons for a failure to survive. We must deal with what IS, rather than what we wish WAS.

If the 2nd amendment allows for the people to obtain the same weaponry as the government to defend itself under tyrannical government, should we arm the people with all of those nasty toys i described earlier?

No, we absolutely should not arm the people with anything at all. It is up to the people to arm themselves, not us to arm them. When we arm them and send them forth, that is called a "military", and we already have one of those, which is under government control. Kinda defeats the purpose. They should be permitted to arm themselves with whatever they can acquire, including but not limited to your "nasty toys". "Nasty toys" are what win conflicts, and either keep dictators in check, or conversely allow dictators to keep their unarmed subjects in check.

Should we take away from the military and government those weapons that we would not reasonably allow the public to posses? If so, what ramifications could come to our national security and safety?

If one insists on limiting the power of the people, then yes. There should never be a disparity in what a government allows itself vs, what it allows the people. Theoretically (and I stress "theoretically"), the people ARE the government - if that is true, why is there such a disparity in what is allowed the one, but not the other? That disparity is not limited to weaponry - it goes across the board, and includes such things as "health care" and even "insider trading". Government appears to be in the habit these days of saying "good for me but not for thee" in a number of areas.

Catch 22, is it not?

Not at all. It's only a "catch-22" to people who are comfortable with having overlords tell them what to do, while the overlords themselves have no such limitations.

Thus, it all comes back to my original point. The 2nd amendment is vague and needs to be updated to be much more specific. This isn't the 1700's anymore and must be updated to reflect the current state of weaponry and technology.

I'm still not quite sure why you think such a simple and short paragraph is "vague". It seems quite specific enough to me, and even to my grandchildren, barely old enough to read. Of course they, and perhaps I, don't tend towards unnecessarily over-complicating very simple things. Maybe that's the advantage of youth - seeing that the Emperor is naked - and I am undergoing my second childhood. Always a possibility.

The word "arms" is not limited temporally or technologically. It covers things one may arm oneself with. It's not vague, it is specific to weaponry. It's actually very flexible temporally and technologically, yet restricted at the same time to a very specific class of objects - things to arm oneself with. At one point in time, "arms" covered rocks and sticks, and at another it covered rocks and stick as well as anti-aircraft guns.

A marvelous word, eminently useful in any age. Looks like the Founders really knew their crap when it came to constructing clear, specific, and timeless phrases!

a reply to: introvert

Letter of the law states "Arms".

And yes, I believe that in some form we the People should have access to what the Military has, but that is already set forth for Militias.

Letter of the law states Arms, which is small arms.

The reason the 2nd was put into place was more about keeping an intrusive and necessary evil within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. SO....if 1+1=2, then we the people should have all means to do so.

a reply to: jimmyx

So...you now have an issue with people who have low IQs.

Man, here I thought you were part of the thinking that was accepting and tolerant of ALL people.

Guess I was wrong, and you are just as bigoted as those you scream down.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Answer

Then you use the old "well England banned guns and now people don't get shot."

Perhaps you meant to respond to another member, because I have never said anything about England or anything of the sort.

Yeah, it's called paraphrasing. You posted this:

"The link above shows a comparison between the US and other nations with stricter gun laws or outright bans. The difference is astounding!"

You've repeatedly used every argument made by the anti-gun crowd including "the 2nd Amendment is vague and open to interpretation" multiple times. The statement above shows that you buy into the anti-gun agenda of ignoring overall violent crime rates while only focusing on "gun crime." It's misdirection, classic misdirection.

2nd Amendment supporters... the TRUE supporters... know where we stand on the issue. I hate to use the old tired cliche but you're either with us or you're against us.

You're honestly like the folks who say "I'm fine with gays doing whatever they do but I'm totally against gay marriage." You're fine with your little piece of the pie but screw everybody else who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded view of the issue.

Again, please don't go around claiming to be pro-2nd Amendment while supporting further restrictions on guns. You'll be used as an example when the anti-gun crowd says "See! Even gun owners want stricter laws!"

originally posted by: introvert

ETA: Where in the constitution does it define "arms"? If it doesn't who defines it and what gave them the authority to do so?

This whole discourse over the meaning of the word "arms" reminds me of a certain former president who had trouble comprehending the term "is". What is so difficult? Are there no dictionaries in DC, or where you are?

I kid, I kid... I know full well that the intent of haggling over the meaning of an already clearly defined word in common usage was and is being used in both cases merely as a smoke screen, a means of obfuscation.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jimmyx

So...you now have an issue with people who have low IQs.

Well, self-hatred is a fairly common problem...

a reply to: nenothtu

Basing one's life on what one wishes or believes "should be" rather than on what IS is one of the more common reasons for a failure to survive. We must deal with what IS, rather than what we wish WAS.

Interesting. I wonder if the founders felt the same way when they started a revolution to bring about the freedoms and rights that they wished or believed "should be".

If we only deal with what "is", then we are allowing others to shape what "is".

They should be permitted to arm themselves with whatever they can acquire, including but not limited to your "nasty toys".

I respectfully disagree. I don't think people need to have ICBM's, nukes of anything of the sort. But that's just my opinion.

If one insists on limiting the power of the people, then yes. There should never be a disparity in what a government allows itself vs, what it allows the people. Theoretically (and I stress "theoretically"), the people ARE the government - if that is true, why is there such a disparity in what is allowed the one, but not the other? That disparity is not limited to weaponry - it goes across the board, and includes such things as "health care" and even "insider trading". Government appears to be in the habit these days of saying "good for me but not for thee" in a number of areas.

Agreed, but I still don't think Joe Blow down the street needs an anti-aircraft system in his backyard.

Not at all. It's only a "catch-22" to people who are comfortable with having overlords tell them what to do, while the overlords themselves have no such limitations.

Absurd. Deciding as a culture and society what is acceptable and safe to have available to the public is not the same as capitulating to some "overlords".

I'm still not quite sure why you think such a simple and short paragraph is "vague".

It's vague because it leaves the entire amendment open to individual interpretation and I don't like that. I believe we have the right to "arms" up to a certain point. You go all the way and some others believe we shouldn't have anything more than sticks and stones because "guns are evil". I believe we need to stop the debate, discuss as a nation what is acceptable and put it in black and white so the gun-grabbers will stfu and the pro-2nd people can go about their business knowing that their rights are clearly defined.....no longer open to debate or individual interpretation.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5

No value to background checks? Is there no value to having laws by which to arrest gun dealers who run guns to gangs? Or laws by which to confiscate guns legally possessed?

Did you really mean to say you want laws to "confiscate guns legally possessed", or was that a Freudian slip?

Star for humor...but you know what I meant

originally posted by: macman

Letter of the law states Arms, which is small arms.

I hate to be disagreeable, but this is something I obviously need to know: where, exactly, is the word "arms" defined to mean "small arms"? How small is "small"? is it restricted to only .22 caliber pocket pistols? or maybe the concealable fingernail files they search folks for at airports? "Small" is relative - I need to know precisely HOW small this definition allows for, and how large that particular "small" can get before it gets into the category of "large" arms.

Then I have to wonder why the Second doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear small arms shall not be infringed", or how the Founders intended for the people to go up against a tyrannical government in possession of the aforementioned large arms with only their small arms, if that actually were the intent of the Amendment... because the Founders certainly did not limit themselves to "small" arms in their little dustup that created the nation - the Continentals had arms every bit as large as their British opponents, i.e. the government being resisted at the time.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

Accept, a state provided fully auto capable rifle is supplied by the state in every home.
Along with a healthy stock pile of ammo.www.wnd.com...

WND is not your friend. You can check wiki or other sources to figure out where your claim fails.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

Letter of the law states "Arms".

And yes, I believe that in some form we the People should have access to what the Military has, but that is already set forth for Militias.

Letter of the law states Arms, which is small arms.

The reason the 2nd was put into place was more about keeping an intrusive and necessary evil within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. SO....if 1+1=2, then we the people should have all means to do so.

To what extent should the people have access to what the military has? Are small arms limited to pistols, rifles, fully-auto a problem....etc?

Another member agreed with why the 2nd was granted as a right, but he believes we should allow the public to have access to ANYTHING the military has. Do you agree with that or does your "common sense" (I know, a liberal gun-grabbing propaganda term) come in to play and that's why you said "in some form".

Even you realize that a line must be drawn a some point, and as of now that's up to individual interpretation. Even among the pro-2nd crowd, there is no consensus as to how far that right goes.

See what I'm getting at here and the problem that exists?