[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

a reply to: Gryphon66


No, when there are permissions needed and payments required, freedoms are in fact lost.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is, by definition, a limit on my right to bear arms.

Im not going to campaign for the legalization of the Thompson....but it sure would be nice to be able to legally own one.

A State limiting sales of weapons is only a limit by YOUR definition ... not the Constitution's, the Supreme Court's or any State government.

So you can't own one type of weapon, but you can (and presumably do) own firearms, right?

Color me surprised that my government would choose to bend the simple definition of words to suit their tyrannical agenda. Like that's never happened before.

That's a very generic and hyperbolic statement, Texan.

Are you saying that a State limitation on certain weapons, or providing for the means of sale qualifies as a "tyrannical agenda" in your mind???

Uhmmm ... really?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

Awesome, a meme has now been posted.

You could have just stated that you realize you've lost the argument, LOL.

Dude, you're a liberal with Moloch as your avatar. You lost before posting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Well, there's an interesting take on the argument at least.

Yes, if the Constitution is meaningless, then the discussion of rights and responsibilities under same is meaningless.

However, you'd have a hard time proving that the Constitution is meaningless. Care to give that a go?

Rights are inherent. They can be violated, but not given or taken away.

The Constitution can be completely repealed and replaced tomorrow. That doesn't make the rights enumerated within go away. Ink on paper did not create them. The Articles of Confederation were replaced, the Constitution can be as well.

Ultimately, the only interpretation of the Constitution that matters is mine. As anyone who attempts to take my arms will find out. Rights are only for those willing to fight and die for them.

Keep thinking some bureaucrat in a suit or black robe is out to protect your best interests...

Rights are inherent? Who says? Without the rule-of-law or some similar social compact, your "rights" are limited to what you personally can take and hold.

You're arguing from an ideal perspective. Yes, it's possible that the Constitution could be repealed and replaced tomorrow, but there is virtually zero chance of that actually happening. A large meteorite could strike and kill us all thus negating any further questions about rights or the lack of them -- that's also unlikely.

The only interpretation of the Constitution that matters TO YOU is yours. I accept that.

No one is coming for your guns; that's a fear-mongering myth.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It is an infringement since the 10th states that the States can not make laws in violation of enumerated rights in the Constitution.

But you already knew that

If one replace gunz with gay marriage.

Anti Gunners say something quite different.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66


No, when there are permissions needed and payments required, freedoms are in fact lost.

Another hopelessly generic statement.

What freedom do you have if no one keeps another person from attacking you?

If you can't do that yourself, are you saying that you have no freedom?

a reply to: Krakatoa

The Declaration of Independence has limited legal standing.

Thanks for posting the text however; do you have a point?

a reply to: LockNLoad

Oh I know that. I understand his argument. I see where he is coming from even though he is wrong.
And if I might add (I've been wanting to say this since he brought it up) that apparently he is pointing out a paradox in the Constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am trusted with knowledge and access to something that is considered vital to our national defense...

But the belief is I cannot be trusted with a burst fire or full auto weapon... because of other peoples actions.

NOT that I think I should own one... didnt think i needed to spell that out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Your right to own something derives from your ability to keep it.

If you are overcome and someone takes your property away, then your "right" is gone.

Your argument dissolves into "might makes the right."

I wouldn't choose to live in such a system.

Rights are only for those willing to fight and die for them. Your right to life/property can be violated, but it cannot be taken away.

We are living under such a system, with government being the "might" making "right". Why so many people wish for a government monopoly of force boggles my mind.

If one would bother to read what the Founders thought about self-defense and defense of country, it would become clear that the intent was to have the citizenry and government on equal footing.

We The People have been slacking in our duties to be the well-regulated militia if anything...

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It is an infringement since the 10th states that the States can not make laws in violation of enumerated rights in the Constitution.

But you already knew that

If one replace gunz with gay marriage.

Anti Gunners say something quite different.

What a snide pointless thing to say. I'm not an anti-gunner.

But you worked in a spurious reference to equal rights ... I was wondering how long it would take you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I haven't "lost the argument" because you haven't answered the damn question.

If I can't buy an item then how can I bear that item???

And here's a follow up if you ever decide to answer... Since California limits my firearm purchases, has my ability to bear firearms been limited???

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

The Declaration of Independence has limited legal standing.

Thanks for posting the text however; do you have a point?

Yes, that the rights we are discussing ARE inherent at birth. It answers your earlier question on that topic, when you stated....

Rights are inherent? Who says? Without the rule-of-law or some similar social compact, your "rights" are limited to what you personally can take and hold.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Unfortunately, I think I finally understand it too. And it scares me.

This is precisely, exactly, the reason I oppose any regulations. "Sure, you can own a gun, but you can't buy one." It's just another convoluted attempt to thwart the Constitution using semantics. It ranks right up there with "Sure, you can have a gun, but bullets are illegal." Both are based in such an intense desire to strip Americans of their arms that any kind of legal trickery or redefinition is fine, as long as the goal is obtained: make sure no one gets to defend themselves.

This same kind of twisted logic is prevalent not just in the general public, but in both houses of Congress and throughout the Federal beaurocracy as well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

Generic is correct, it applies to all freedoms.

Products, in this case, firearms cost $$$. To ask for permission to purchase this form of freedom is not freedom.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You said it better than me. Thank you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What a snide pointless thing to say.

If you say so, but we both know you sing a different tune with it comes to state rights about gay marriage, and immigration.

Sanctuary states for gunz.

I can't wait for the next rebuttal.

My guess is still telling people that 2+2 equals 5.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Unfortunately, I think I finally understand it too. And it scares me.

This is precisely, exactly, the reason I oppose any regulations. "Sure, you can own a gun, but you can't buy one." It's just another convoluted attempt to thwart the Constitution using semantics. It ranks right up there with "Sure, you can have a gun, but bullets are illegal." Both are based in such an intense desire to strip Americans of their arms that any kind of legal trickery or redefinition is fine, as long as the goal is obtained: make sure no one gets to defend themselves.

This same kind of twisted logic is prevalent not just in the general public, but in both houses of Congress and throughout the Federal beaurocracy as well.

TheRedneck

It's why America loves rednecks.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Of course your right to property can be taken away ... the "right" is in the holding of the property?

If your property is taken, then your right to hold it has been compromised or taken if you will.

If you're speaking of some philosophical concept, that's all fine and well, but as I said, it's mere idealism.

I don't disagree that any government is authoritarian in it's essence. However, can you suggest a better alternative?

No here has wished for a government monopoly of force

I have read what the Founders wanted and said extensively, and specifically in regard to the Constitution.

Their intent was that the national government would not have a standing army or in reality, any sort of standing force.

Would you also argue to do away with our military except for the Navy?

What do you imagine the well-regulated militia should be doing that it's not doing?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Unfortunately, I think I finally understand it too. And it scares me.

This is precisely, exactly, the reason I oppose any regulations. "Sure, you can own a gun, but you can't buy one." It's just another convoluted attempt to thwart the Constitution using semantics. It ranks right up there with "Sure, you can have a gun, but bullets are illegal." Both are based in such an intense desire to strip Americans of their arms that any kind of legal trickery or redefinition is fine, as long as the goal is obtained: make sure no one gets to defend themselves.

This same kind of twisted logic is prevalent not just in the general public, but in both houses of Congress and throughout the Federal beaurocracy as well.

TheRedneck

They have also begun using the "felony clauses" by changing the definition of what is a felony. By doing that, you can extend the reach of the stripping of this right because, by law, if you are convicted of a felony, you can no longer keep and bear arms. When passe,d it was "common sense legislation". Once passed, now merely redefining what constitutes a felony makes it easier to strip away the rights of people without "infringing upon" the constitution.

Horse-hockey, I say.