People tend to put members of our government over the members of society that allow them to hold their positions.
You are asking to engage in a philosophical debate which would take forever and would really be a different topic. The Supreme Court never engages in that type of philosophical discussion and what we are talking about here is whether any ban of any weapon by the Supreme Court would meet constitutional muster.
The arguments I've made are all perfectly clear.If you are NOT making that argument....
Any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.Then enlighten all of us on what weapons you believe CAN be legitimately banned.
What weapons that are for "warfare and committing mass murder" are not also suitable for use in "hunting and personal protection"?For hunting and personal protection - yes.
For warfare and committing mass murder - no.
I am merely asking for the reasoning behind a want for any ban.
I am well aware that even the supreme court can rule in favor of unconstitutional measures. What are we to do if they break the rules?
Unfortunately the constitution is written in an almost foreign language and is able to be swayed based on (True/False) interpretation.
I personally believe that a ban on any projectile device I.E. Gun, would be unconstitutional. Reasoning provided above.
However, you cannot argue facts to facts when it comes to the constitution unfortunately.
The arguments I've made are all perfectly clear.
When you muster the testicular fortitude to honestly address them, let me know.
Any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.
For hunting and personal protection - yes.
For warfare and committing mass murder - no.
And WHY is England's murder rate so much lower than ours ?
The generic reasoning behind a want for any ban is that there are some weapons for which there is no legitimate interest and that the government has justification for banning because it puts our society at risk.
If you take the anti-gun/ban position --- ANY gun puts our society at risk.
If you take the pro-gun/anti-ban position ---NO weapon should be restricted.
The bigger question is what falls within the gray areas.
You don't know?Sounds like yet another cop-out. What weapons don't fall under the definition "arms" in your opinion?
Sounds like yet another cop-out. What weapons don't fall under the definition "arms" in your opinion?
Automatic machine guns? Grenade launchers?......????
1.Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
You don't know?
If you don't know, how can you possibly have an informed discussion on the matter?
Do the research. Get back to me when you are less ignorant.
That's one way of describing the term as used in the 2nd.Technically anything specifically designed as a weapon functioning under the use of a single person is considered "arms".
Those both fall under the arms category.
Technically anything specifically designed as a weapon functioning under the use of a single person is considered "arms".
-Your- ignorace will not allow you to have a meaningful discussion.Dancing the shuffle.
That could basically be anything then. What weapon cannot function under the use of a single person?
The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.The generic reasoning behind a want for any ban is that there are some weapons for which there is no legitimate interest and that the government has justification for banning because it puts our society at risk.
And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.If you take the anti-gun/ban position --- ANY gun puts our society at risk.
We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.If you take the pro-gun/anti-ban position ---NO weapon should be restricted.
There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.The bigger question is what falls within the gray areas.
-Your- ignorace will not allow you to have a meaningful discussion.
Your ignorance is not MY fault; don't blame ME for your unwillingness to learn what you need to learn to carry on an intelligent conversation.
My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.
If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
If you disagree with that position, explain why.
The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.
And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.
We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.
There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.
The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.
From:
Urban Policy
Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.
Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...
The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
Psst... your ignorace is showing.Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment.
Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.
You are, of course, right.The problem here is that you say handguns and rifles cannot be banned.
Every firearm is a handgun or rifle.
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?