It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders Calls for All Guns Not Used Specifically for Hunting to be Outlawed!

page: 15
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes, you're right. It guarantees arms.
I guarantee a musket. (Or a Colt 1911, or a Deagle, or an M91, or a Blunderbuss, or an M16, or an AR-15, or a .44 Special.)
These things are arms.
Therefore, I guarantee even just one of these tings, and arms are guaranteed.

It really doesn't seem so complicated.
edit on 1/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons




posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

We're getting into fantasy land here. Its never going to happen, both because the public would never support giving up their collections and choices in the matter and because the government might actually be forced to provide citizens with a standard modern infantry rifle and sidearm if it were to be accepted. Is it Constitutional? Probably. Would it ever happen? Nope.
edit on 1-3-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78


standard modern infantry rifle and sidearm


Rifle? Yes. Sidearm? No. A Mosin-Nagant is not exactly "Standard", but would easily fulfill what the constitution requires.

However, I am glad we finally reached this point in the discussion.
It isn't about the Constitution.
It was never about the Constitution in the first place.

People like their guns, for a variety of reasons, and people don't want to give them up.
They're just using the Constitution as a shield rather than being open about it. Rather than saying "I wish to keep my AR-15 because I like having my AR-15," they are saying "You must allow me to keep my AR-15 because it is my Constitutional right."
Which isn't necessarily correct.
Both the pro-gun side and the anti-gun side use propaganda to further their own, individual desires. The sooner this accepted, the sooner we will move towards a solution that will actually decrease the amount of mass shootings and murders the US currently endures.

If you gave everyone a Mosin-Nagant (and the training to use one as well, I suppose), but (successfully) took away their other firearms, the amount of mass shootings would plummet like a rock. It would still be constitutional. Actually, arguably more constitutional than the current situation.
But people don't want that.
They want their firearm that they nicknamed "Big Bertha" and like to stroke at night.
Because, I will repeat, the gun issue is not actually about the constitution.

edit on 1/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
So you are saying that guns only being available as a purchase is not limiting access only to those with the economic status and ability to buy one? If someone is penniless and homeless, where is their firearm access?
Not giving guns to the homeless is a second amendment violation, is it not?


The 2nd Amendment is only a limitation of the government. It doesn't limit businesses or suggest that firearms manufacturers can't sell at a profit.

Now, perhaps we can argue that the government is negligent in not subsidizing firearms purchases for the poor...



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Theoretically, the government should be forced to manufacture firearms and hand them out for free as the citizenry request. Though they would not need to create the guns to specification. Only that "a gun" be created, suitable for the purposes of Militia. Refer to Mosin-Nagant.
(And would be in their rights to make the sale of firearms illegal, though would not be compelled to do so.)

But... Wouldn't that be Socialism, I am hearing several members pre-emptively scream?
Sort of, yes.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Rifle? Yes. Sidearm? No. A Mosin-Nagant is not exactly "Standard", but would easily fulfill what the constitution requires.


I would disagree with you there. The only way your argument could potentially work is if the firearms available where the same ones in use by the 'organized' US militia, that being the National Guard. If its not suitable for their use, its not suitable for the civilian populace under your proposal, either. You can't have it both ways. Otherwise, you're going to run into all kinds of Constitutional problems.

And this discussion absolutely IS about the Constitution. I'm only saying that, theoretically, you could provide the citizenry with a suitable militia weapon and fulfill 2A. Based on current US military/National Guard usage, I'd argue that's an M-4 variant and M-9 as a sidearm.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Shamrock6

They have full access to "arms", because they are guaranteed a musket, which is an "arms".
Anything else is superfluous.
If I am guaranteed a vessel in which to hold water, it does not matter whether that vessel is Chinese porcelain or a hollowed log.
Yes, I understand that this may appear to be an insane thing I am saying.

So you are saying that guns only being available as a purchase is not limiting access only to those with the economic status and ability to buy one? If someone is penniless and homeless, where is their firearm access?
Not giving guns to the homeless is a second amendment violation, is it not?

So, can we have freedom of religion as long as it is Christianity.... and nothing else.
Can men be free to vote.... but only Asian men?
Can we publish a newspaper, but only in Braille?
Do those examples satisfy Constitutional requirements, in your opinion?



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

There is a difference between "Suitable" and "Optimal". A Mosin-Nagant is a tried and true firearm that has been used in modern conflicts. (Though not necessarily by the US military.)
The argument works if the people are supplied with the necessary weapon (a sidearm is not necessary) for militia duty.

This discussion? Yes.
The gun control discussion? No. It's about Big Bertha. It's about the desires of the individual, not about the second amendment.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I would have to read the exact passages.

Does it say "freedom of all religion"?

Maybe. Possibly. The constitution itself is largely meaningless when push comes to shove (see: Fourth Amendment). Its power is in focusing the will of the people. Not the document itself.
edit on 1/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You've yet to cite anything about being guaranteed a musket.

When you quit trying to muddy the waters with the whole "unless guns are free then there's no access!" shtick, there is absolutely zero point in continuing. Weapons cost money in the 18th century. That argument is pure fallacy.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You've yet to cite anything about being guaranteed everything.

You calling it a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy, you know.
Where's your rebuttal?
If you're saying that "weapons cost money in the 18th century" therefore limiting the access of firearms only to those with the economic power to purchase them is not an infringement, then neither is limiting the weapons themselves to those used during the 18th century.


edit on 1/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You're trying to have it both ways, which is part of the reason something like this could never, ever work. The only way the public would ever even remotely consider this type of proposal is by putting them on equal footing with the organized militia, at the very least. Yours would make them weaker and subordinate, which they already are, AND take away their private collections and choice. That's an immediate no-go.

The whole discussion is pointless, anyway, because we're arguing over something that's theoretical only and will never be a practical reality.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Part of what I'm trying to point out is that the second amendment doesn't actually protect you.
The other part is that gun control isn't about the second amendment and was never about the second amendment, despite it being the go-to argument of the pro-gun camp since the government could screw over the citizens while still staying squarely inside its bounds.
The main reason I don't want to give them a sidearm is because handguns are the most common choice when used in murder or gun violence, and because doing so is not constitutionally necessary.
Remember, this is a constitutionally grounded argument.

Maybe if everyone had AKs?

Then why do people argue over Sanders turning America into the USSR, or whatever crazy things it is they say?
Why do people screech that he'll steal all the guns, when practically that's never going to happen.
Besides, it's an interesting discussion.
edit on 1/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
"Now, personally, I don't want people having access to howitzers and automatic weapons. But that's because of the nature of my work, and my lack of desire to have somebody answer his front door with a 105 mm howitzer round. NOT because I think something in the amendment prohibits it. "

That is good instincts. You should stick with that.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You're 100% right. Me calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one. You using a fallacy is what makes it the use of a fallacy.

Arms equals arms. Arms does not equal musket. I don't have to cite anything showing that arms is anything other than a musket. All I have to do is cite the amendment itself, which uses the term "arms" without qualification. YOU are the one that continually says the amendment guarantees access to muskets.

Free access, apparently.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Name the fallacy. Define it. You're just calling it a fallacy without explaining what it actually is.

Arms equals arms. Arms equals musket. Musket equals arms. Musket equals musket.
Yes, it uses "arms" without qualification. Am I disputing that? That is the basis upon which I am arguing. If "arms" had been qualified as, for example, "weapons of equal quality and type to those possessed by the armed forces of the State" we would not be having this discussion.
No, I am saying that the amendment guarantees access to "arms", which includes muskets, and may be restricted to nothing but muskets without breaching the terms of the constitution. Its spirit, yes. Not the terms. Not the word. Not the law.

Allow me to finely spell out the points I have been attempting to make.

1) The constitution is essentially useless and toothless in and of itself when it comes to protecting the citizenry from the Government. Its power stems from focusing the will of the people.
2) While staying squarely within constitutionally acceptable bounds, the Government may effectively screw over the people. The second amendment does not protect you. Yourself protects you.
3) The pro-gun side of the gun control argument, while commonly citing the second amendment in defense, does not actually care about the second amendment. What they care about is their guns because they like their guns, not the "right of the people to bear arms" [not exact quote].

This discussion has been quite enjoyable for me, though from your perspective it is likely just insane troll logic. Alas, it is time for me to leave. I hope this has gone interesting places by the time I return tomorrow, but I doubt that will have happened.
edit on 1/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
Im not into guns at all, don't own one but if that's what he said then Im voting Trump ! We need to be able to defend our family with something smaller than a hunting rifle.

So you don't know you can hunt with pistols? What's the difference besides caliber from a hunting rifle and a ar15?? And any weapon that is used for hunting can be used for home defense.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I understand the argument you're trying to make and from a theoretical standpoint, I agree with parts of it and disagree with others. As you say, it IS an interesting theoretical discussion, if perhaps not a practical one.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



This discussion has been quite enjoyable for me, though from your perspective it is likely just insane troll logic.

It is a mighty fine line that you are treading on, and in my opinion, you have actually fallen off on the troll side of the wire.
But, as you stated, it is a perspective thing.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You're not guaranteed a musket.

You're guaranteed the right to own arms. Whether you choose to do so is voluntary. It's a right to own one. The right itself is guaranteed. Being guaranteed a weapon is not the right. Much like you have the guaranteed right to free speech. Whether you choose to exercise that right is entirely up to you. But you have the right to do so if you wish. Nobody is forcing you to do it.

You seem to be extremely confused about a number of things that pertain to the bill of rights and constitution. I would suggest you do a significant amount of research before trying to engage in constitutional debate. Your beliefs are fundamentally flawed from a very basic level.

As for naming the fallacies you've employed? Here's a short list: affirmative conclusion from negative premise, negative conclusion from affirmative premise, self-refuting idea because of the first two, reductio ad absurdum (again because of the first two), escape hatch, hand wave. I'm sure I can find some more that apply in one instance or another.
edit on 1-3-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join