Gun-control proponents lament as "Assault Weapons Ban" does nothing

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.

"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.

Is that defined in the amendment?

No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.

But its clear that people cant own arms that "least match the arms available to the Govt representative".

No, it is very very clear that the private ownership of arms is for use against a tyrannical Govt, therefore allowing a matching of arms.

It was specifically designed to not define specific arms for this reason.

Yes i understand that , it just seems that these days people cant own the same weapons as the government

These days the Govt has overstepped its bounds so far, it should make anyone's head explode.

The US Govt has taken the Progressive approach to the creating laws. Instead of the originating laws stating "this is what the people have as Rights" and the restriction of what the Federal Govt is allowed to do, they have turned it on it's head and whored it out to be what the minimum of what it should do.

The 2nd was created to allow the people to hold the Govt, by force if needed, to what it is designed to do/be.

If the same Govt has automatic rifles, the people in turn are allowed to have them.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.

"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.

Is that defined in the amendment?

No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.

But its clear that people cant own arms that "least match the arms available to the Govt representative".

No, it is very very clear that the private ownership of arms is for use against a tyrannical Govt, therefore allowing a matching of arms.

It was specifically designed to not define specific arms for this reason.

Yes i understand that , it just seems that these days people cant own the same weapons as the government

These days the Govt has overstepped its bounds so far, it should make anyone's head explode.

The 2nd was created to allow the people to hold the Govt, by force if needed, to what it is designed to do/be.

But not for personal protection then? I mean against non government people.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

I might be wrong, but I watched that show sometimes and I think most customers were active duty soldiers.
Like I said though I could be very wrong, havent watched that show in long time, got real lame.

Peace.

originally posted by: Lichter daraus
a reply to: PhoenixOD

I might be wrong, but I watched that show sometimes and I think most customers were active duty soldiers.
Like I said though I could be very wrong, havent watched that show in long time, got real lame.

Peace.

You could be right, i only watch it when im visiting the US.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Before you go any further, you need to understand that our constitution does not enumerate what we are allowed to do. Instead, it enumerates what the government is allowed to do.

The 2nd Amendment has no purpose other than to guarantee that we, as humans, are given the right to defend ourselves using the tools that humans use. In the same way that you should not declaw your cat. They have a right to defend themselves in a way that cats do.

Thus, it is not encumbant on The People to state why they want arms, or what they are intending to use them for.

Violent crimes have been going down for a while now in the USA, but the media makes sure we get to see violence to scare us, to force us to only feel safe at home, protect our castles with weapons.

I wonder whos making a profit here, the government, weapon makers, police force?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Yep Americas lust for weaponry seems to win every time. If gun control does nothing then why have it at all? Maybe we should just let everyone have any weapon (grenades, bazookas, flame throwers, etc) they want at any age and be done with it.

Zero restrictions for everyone, even for convicted felons. Allow concealed carry for anyone in any place , schools, airports etc etc..

Then America would be a much safer place.

Generalize much?

I suppose all English people have bad teeth and are idiots like Austin Powers...

All black people love watermelon and fried chicken...

All Asians are kung-fu experts........

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's the best most articulate easy to understand explanation I think I've ever heard. I am going to borrow that in the future...I know you won't mind lol.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Dont get me wrong , i am not anti gun.

"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.

Is that defined in the amendment?

No, there are no defining terms as to what "arms" constitute.
Seeing as the Amendment was created to allow the people to bear weapons against a tyrannical Govt, by default, it has to allow the people to at the very least match the arms available to the Govt representative.

But its clear that people cant own arms that "least match the arms available to the Govt representative".

No, it is very very clear that the private ownership of arms is for use against a tyrannical Govt, therefore allowing a matching of arms.

It was specifically designed to not define specific arms for this reason.

Yes i understand that , it just seems that these days people cant own the same weapons as the government

These days the Govt has overstepped its bounds so far, it should make anyone's head explode.

The 2nd was created to allow the people to hold the Govt, by force if needed, to what it is designed to do/be.

But not for personal protection then? I mean against non government people.

The 2nd was not create just for personal protection, it was created to reign in Govt by force when necessary.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

So many entities profit from the constant bombardment of doom porn.

The facts show that violent crime is at historic lows.

That reality is at odds with a government that seeks to expand control and restrict liberty. It's at odds with police who are constantly vying for more hires, more money, more equipment and more power. It's at odds with a 24 hour news cycle that needs viewers stuck to their couches and glued to the television to sell advertising spots.

From a statist or corporatist or simply from a control perspective fear is great.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a nice interpretation , there seems to be some difference between what it originally meant and what it means now. It seems its undergone a few changes in meaning (what it applies to) over the years and the wording is still a little unclear.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

On the contrary I think it's quite clear I just think over time its been looked at through the lense of a corrupt system looking to consolidate power. What it says is quite clear which is why I liked bft's analogy. It says as a human being you have the right to arms (cats claws) and that right shall not be infringed (never ok to declaw a cat). Seems clear as a bell unless you want it to mean something it doesn't

Also there is the false impression its only Americans right...its the right of all humans and the founders clearly stated this on the record as it were. The only difference is other countries did not guarantee their citizens they would allow them the right or protect it. However you still have the innate rights spelled out in the bill of rights...thats also what makes the bill of rights special as compared to the rest of the document most of the Constitution deals with the US but those 10 are for all and its just a guarantee to us citizens they will respect that. With that in mind how would one define breech of contract and what would the penalty be in the case of the Constitution?

a reply to: PhoenixOD

It doesnt have to apply to anything as far as purpose or use is concerned. All this talk of self-defense or keeping government in line or whatever is irrelevant.

You, me, everybody else has the right to keep and bear arms.

Doesnt matter if I want to walk around with one 24/7, shoot milk jugs in the yard with one or just stare at one above the mantel.

The "why" is absolutely irrelevant.

Or, how's this: "all lawful purposes." That's the canned response you write in if you live in a state that requires you to apply for a permit.

Incidentally, the reason to use that canned response rather than anything more specific, even if you really only want a gun for target shooting or self-defense or to rise up against a totalitarian regime, is because if you are specific some bureaucrat with an agenda can argue against your stated reason. Sort of how you're trying to do right now.

a reply to: Metallicus

you obviously do not understand how a gun works either.
a fully automatic will continue to fire bullets until it runs out of
ammunition or you remove the pressure on your trigger finger.
a burst action will fire (three) rounds for each trigger pull.

a semi automatic will fire one round for each trigger pull
a bolt action will fire one round per trigger pull.
a lever action will fire one round per trigger pull.

there are eight separate events that must happen
between each bullet fired and are listed below:

1. feeding
2. chambering
3. locking
4. firing
5. unlocking
6. extracting
7. ejecting
8. cocking

each different type of action (bolt, semi auto, auto, lever, breech)
does these eight things differently.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a nice interpretation , there seems to be some difference between what it originally meant and what it means now. It seems its undergone a few changes in meaning (what it applies to) over the years and the wording is still a little unclear.

There is no difference. Words were written. There can be no argument about what those words are, and what was intended by them. The Federalist/antiFederalist papers along with a few dozen other documents discusses pretty clearly what was meant by those words.

In the intervening years, most certainly there have been tyrants who have sought to create confusion. However, none exists except in the mind of those who might be confused.

"Shall not be infringed" is as clear as can possibly be. In a document in which the purpose is to enumerate government responsibilities and limitations, "shall not be infringed" lays it out quite clearly. Because all humans have the right to defend themselves, both personally and politically, using the tools that humans use.

In my humble opinion, guns have NEVER caused crime.
I have seen guns laying all around, and not once yet have any of them committed a crime.
The same cannot be said for humans.
People cause crime, guns stop crime.
Really simple actually.
Before guns, it was swords, before that it was clubs, then rocks.
We have always had crime, hopefully we will always have guns to stop it.

a reply to: g146541

From a civil rights perspective, I find it helpful that, whenever people talk about gun bans, replace the word "guns" with "books" and see if you still agree with the premise. Remember, books and the thoughts contained therein can be linked to all of the genocide in the 20th century.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment does not restrict people or small arms, you are correct.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets lol.

Yes but it wasn't written for muskets. Its an arms clause if you will that flows to the sates and its citizens as an answer to the strong complaint by some states that the federal government could be to strong. In fact I cant see anything in the 2nd that give the fed any authority at all to regulate arms. Is regulation a state function then by default? Nope. All the state can regulate is the militia but even this is not a restrictive directive. This simply grants that the states can operate their own military units outside federal control. State militias can organize, drill, elect officers ect without federal oversight and the right to keep and bear remains with the people.

Percentages. Look at the percentages.

If someone misuses a tool (or other item), then should all people be banned from using it?

Think carefully about this list and how many people misuse these tools (or other items, non-physical items):

1. Kitchen Knife
2. Baseball bat
3. Rope
4. A blunt heavy object like pipes or rocks.
5. Automobiles
6. Fire (lighters, matches)
7. Piano wire (or electrical wire, wire in general)
8. Water
9. Alcohol
10. Drugs (prescription or otherwise)
11. Aircraft
12. Food
13. General cleaners

And while the following list isn't an object or physical thing, look at how detrimental it is, and how many people die directly or from complications from (or misuse of):

1. Doctors
2. Medical advice
3. Ignorance
4. Sheer stupidity
5. Electricity
6. Politics
7. Public transit
8. Work
9. Sun exposure
10. Swimming
11. Rock climbing

While this list is far from exhaustive...you can see that a good deal of things have the chance of killing people if misused.

The tools themselves are just that, tools. They themselves aren't responsible for killing anyone, it's the individual who's misusing them.

If punishments aren't 'stiff' enough for people when they choose to misuse something causing harm or death to another, then revise the law for that. The tools people choose to misuse aren't to blame, blame can only be placed on the individual.

Some examples:

1. Person chooses to have their wife, kid, friend whomever take a bath with a radio. Is it the radios fault? Radio charged or banned? Of course not. That would be daft.

2. A spouse finds out or catches their other half in the middle of an affair/sex with another person. The spouse chooses to go to the kitchen, grab a knife and stab them both to death. Is the knife charged or banned? Of course not. That would be daft.

3. A snubbed person who is tormented by a group in a social setting can't take it anymore, and decides to use a household cleaner to spike a drink for the group. People die as a result. Is the cleaner charged or banned? Of course not. That would be daft.

4. An individual chooses to use an automobile to run down individuals they don't agree with, killing several people. Is the automobile charged or banned? Of course not. That would be daft.

People are the ones misusing items, tools, knowledge, etc. People are responsible for this misuse or abuse, not objects.

IF anything should be banned, it's career politicians who clearly serve themselves and the corporations who 'buy' them and their 'support'. The only support politicians should be giving and agendas they should be taking action on, are for the rights and liberties of those who voted them into office to do a job, one they have apparently been failing miserably at for a VERY long time.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry




I think this is all that is needed to explain this.