- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I am simply attempting to do what I did for 33 years - teach about American government.
I kind of disagree with all of that. No rights are being abdicated. I think there is just a misunderstanding of the right. Nor do I believe that what little help it gives to safety is temporary. They will be a small effect, and it will be long term.
Ideally any type of arm allowed to the government. If you are uncomfortable with an individual having a particular armament, then government should not have it either.
Also, I'm creating no fiction. Government force, or outside force in general, is necessary to prevent the exercise of a right. Government force is used to limit one's right to keep and bear arms. There's no bones about it. That's just reality, measured and observed.
That's a nice story, but I don't believe you. Quite frankly, I don't think you're being honest.
Police officers and soldiers who work for the government have the weapons they do as tools to do a specific job. You and I and other citizens DO NOT HAVE THOSE JOBS. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
No class of arms is any more protected than any other. No specific model or usage of firearm is specially protected more than any other.
really-so why don't you tell us what sort of infringements you think are allowed.
well see that is interesting-in your post above this one I quoted you said all firearms have the same level of protection and now you claim that individual citizens do not have the right to own the same stuff police useWhat you want to do in the way of your own personal expectations is your business. You simply have no RIGHT to have that same level of weaponry however.
According to him, so long as you're afforded a bullet, a nail, and hammer; your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon.
well I think I just proved what he really believes. his two posts I have just immediately prior to this post quoted demonstrates that
1) all firearms have the same level of 2nd Amendment protection
2) that most civilians do NOT have the right to own the same weapons CIVILIAN police do
3) Ergo-the second amendment does not protect individual civilians at all no matter what type of gun they want to own
that is the only possible way to find consistency in his two posts combined with his many claims that he supports "the second amendment"
However, his interpretation of the second amendment is contrary to what 70% of the Public believes and that of which almost every constitutional scholar and 5 of the current USSC justices believe
Or a sword.According to him, so long as you're afforded a bullet, a nail, and hammer; your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon.
None of which is logical. His positions are created on his own invented definitions and delusions, nothing rooted in the Constitution nor in rational argument. Cops have guns, that means you can't! Seriously...what sort of argument is that? Ridiculous, as if my rights, my innate and inalienable rights, are augmented by the existence of the police. Absurd.
Or a sword.
Or a sword.
Exactly. Police have guns so if we're restricted to swords our right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon. I have absolutely no idea what sort of delusion and paranoia can lead one to such illogical conclusions.
Authoritarians say the darndest things...when they are stamping on your face with their boot.
No, we do not have those jobs. I did not pretend that I did; please abstain from lying. It's just that one has nothing to do with the other. Yes, police are armed as much as government wants to arm them, they have job, blah blah blah. I have a job too, one that is far greater. Protecting and proliferating the freedom and posterity of the Republic. And for that, we require the militia, and because of that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You keep wanting to somehow connect police with my rights; but the existence of the police as the armed division of the government set against the People does not alter my rights. So you can stop with that retarded argument.
really-so why don't you tell us what sort of infringements you think are allowed. I am glad that you and I agree-a browning over and under shotgun and a Beretta AR 70 select fire true assault rifle should be treated the same.
somehow though, I believe that you think the government has the power to pretty much ban anything while I don't think the federal government has any proper power to regulate either except perhaps as to import duties since both are made in Europe
I said you were engaging in being disingenuous because of your invoking of the fallacy of false equivalency.
There is misunderstanding of the right, but I fear it is not upon my behalf. Limiting the tools of the militia undercuts the militia, and the militia is a necessity to a free state. Will there be an affect? No, not significant, nothing beyond probably 1.5 sigma at best. And yet with these insignificant, perchance imperceptible, "effects" we have those joyously jumping up and down for government force against the free exercise of rights. You will get no safety, all you will do is to enslave yourself further to the government as it isolates itself from the People. This is the natural course of unrestrained government.
well see that is interesting-in your post above this one I quoted you said all firearms have the same level of protection and now you claim that individual citizens do not have the right to own the same stuff police use
which means you don't believe civilians have the right to own any firearm essentially since you have admitted each is protected at the same level
or what you mean is that the second amendment does not apply to individuals which probably is how you can claim to be a big supporter of the amendment-you merely interpret it not to apply to the vast majority of the citizens in the USA
China for example could not be restrained by force.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?