Make the case on why new machine guns should be [W:456, 841, 899]

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

Reagan singed the bill with the Hughes Amendment in it. That makes me right in recognizing a simple fact and you simply living in denial of history and reality railing against a cause that nobody else outside of the radical right seems to be even aware of.

No one denies that-what we deny is your dishonest claim that Reagan signed the entire bill because his motivation was to ban machine guns

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

No one denies that-what we deny is your dishonest claim that Reagan signed the entire bill because his motivation was to ban machine guns

That is the difference between you and I Turtle. I never pretend to be a mind reader and the whole INTENT/MOTIVATION game is just so much stuff and nonsense to me. I am a man who cares about real actions and real results and I do not overly concern myself with the soap opera aspects of what somebody pretended to believe or what their intent was claimed to be.

President Reagan, a Republican and NRA supporter - signed the Firearms Bill into law - with the Hughes language and all. That is reality. Somebody's excuses and rationalizations are not worth what John Nance Garner would have famously called a bucket of warmed up spit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

That is the difference between you and I Turtle. I never pretend to be a mind reader and the whole INTENT/MOTIVATION game is just so much stuff and nonsense to me. I am a man who cares about real actions and real results and I do not overly concern myself with the soap opera aspects of what somebody pretended to believe or what their intent was claimed to be.

President Reagan, a Republican and NRA supporter - signed the Firearms Bill into law - with the Hughes language and all. That is reality. Somebody's excuses and rationalizations are not worth what John Nance Garner would have famously called a bucket of warmed up spit.

yeah when the founders all say they wanted free citizens to be armed-it takes a MIND READER to say that the 2A was a to guarantee that free men be armed

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

yeah when the founders all say they wanted free citizens to be armed-it takes a MIND READER to say that the 2A was a to guarantee that free men be armed

four points here Turtle which you are well aware of

1- why are you restricting this to FREE MEN when the clearest statement of any belief in natural rights is found in the Declaration of Independence and clearly says ALL MEN? Why are you dishonestly trying to change the statements of the Founders?

2- we were in a condition of war against the British crown and it makes perfect sense for people to be armed particularly in the absence of a regular army which would normally be conducting matters and events of war. Any statement made by an individual can well be considered in that reality and must be done with those circumstances in mind.

3 - the arming of men for the militia is something that was given control and regulation of to the federal Congress. So we know for a fact that there was a direct and obvious connection between arming people and the federal governments ability to control such things.

4 - what was protected by the Second Amendment was the right to keep and bear arms. There was no protection to any individual weapon itself which can still be regulated by government as long as the right itself is not infringed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

four points here Turtle which you are well aware of

1- why are you restricting this to FREE MEN when the clearest statement of any belief in natural rights is found in the Declaration of Independence and clearly says ALL MEN? Why are you dishonestly trying to change the statements of the Founders?

2- we were in a condition of war against the British crown and it makes perfect sense for people to be armed particularly in the absence of a regular army which would normally be conducting matters and events of war. Any statement made by an individual can well be considered in that reality and must be done with those circumstances in mind.

3 - the arming of men for the militia is something that was given control and regulation of to the federal Congress. So we know for a fact that there was a direct and obvious connection between arming people and the federal governments ability to control such things.

4 - what was protected by the Second Amendment was the right to keep and bear arms. There was no protection to any individual weapon itself which can still be regulated by government as long as the right itself is not infringed.

1) ah more idiotic DOI diversions

2) given your admission, it is idiotic to claim congress would have the power to DISARM the people

3) arming and regulating those who were or could serve in a FEDERAL militia has nothing to do with disarming other citizens

4) to claim that the pre-existing right to be armed cannot be infringed protects the individual from owning whatever "bearable" arms they choose, Your silly attempts to pretend that the right doesn't protect individual choice is blatantly dishonest

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

1) ah more idiotic DOI diversions

While the insult is clear and unmistakable, there is no refutation of the point I raised : why are you restricting this to FREE MEN when the clearest statement of any belief in natural rights is found in the Declaration of Independence and clearly says ALL MEN? Why are you dishonestly trying to change the statements of the Founders?

2) given your admission, it is idiotic to claim congress would have the power to DISARM the people

here was my so called "admission":

we were in a condition of war against the British crown and it makes perfect sense for people to be armed particularly in the absence of a regular army which would normally be conducting matters and events of war. Any statement made by an individual can well be considered in that reality and must be done with those circumstances in mind.

The only thing I admitted was that your cherry picked quotes from individual founders must be taken in the context of the times of war that we were engaged in and do NOT necessarily reflect their views about arms in any other situation.

3) arming and regulating those who were or could serve in a FEDERAL militia has nothing to do with disarming other citizens

But some of the quotes you and your allies have presented have stated that the militia is indeed ALL the people. So there are NO "other citizens: according to your own quotes.

here is one from Richard Henry Lee

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

and yet another that has been used here by the pro gun lobby forces

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

So it is clear that when the Founders gave Congress power over the militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16 and their arms, they were giving Congress power over the people... the whole people.

4) to claim that the pre-existing right to be armed cannot be infringed protects the individual from owning whatever "bearable" arms they choose, Your silly attempts to pretend that the right doesn't protect individual choice is blatantly dishonest

You have already admitted that there was no pre-existingright protecting anybody. That ship has long ago sailed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

none of that has any use in trying to pretend that the founders saw the 2A as some sort of extremely limited restriction on the federal government.

and even more silly is the claim that the militia clause allowed congress to ban guns in light of the 2A

find ME ONE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED CONGRESS TO BE ABLE TO BAN GUNS

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

That would depend on what BANNING GUNS means. Congress has the power to regulate firearms from Article I Section 8 and can indeed ban individual weapons for good reason. They cannot BAN all guns as that would then cause the right to not be able to be exercised and that is the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that the Second Amendment prohibits.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

That would depend on what BANNING GUNS means. Congress has the power to regulate firearms from Article I Section 8 and can indeed ban individual weapons for good reason. They cannot BAN all guns as that would then cause the right to not be able to be exercised and that is the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that the Second Amendment prohibits.

wrong...

 

[American]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

That would depend on what BANNING GUNS means. Congress has the power to regulate firearms from Article I Section 8 and can indeed ban individual weapons for good reason. They cannot BAN all guns as that would then cause the right to not be able to be exercised and that is the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that the Second Amendment prohibits.

So if Congress bans every single gun except .22LR rifles, then the intent of the 2nd amendment has been fulfilled?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

wrong...

I see the one word position you took but I see no actual debate.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

So if Congress bans every single gun except .22LR rifles, then the intent of the 2nd amendment has been fulfilled?

I suspect not as the Court would probably look as unfavorable on that as they did the handgun situation that gave us Heller.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

I suspect not as the Court would probably look as unfavorable on that as they did the handgun situation that gave us Heller.

Yes or No..

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

Yes or No..

It's yes but he will never post that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

It's yes but he will never post that.

it is the "enjoyment theory" of the 2A. Once someone pretends that the 2A is about what a citizen CAN DO rather than the proper interpretation of what the federal government cannot do (and that has nothing to do with what guns someone currently owns or what is currently on the market), the answer has to be YES

 

[Ockham]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

So if Congress bans every single gun except .22LR rifles, then the intent of the 2nd amendment has been fulfilled?

:lamo

No no.... only pea shooters are allowed. THEN the 2A is fully realized.

 

[American]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

:lamo

No no.... only pea shooters are allowed. THEN the 2A is fully realized.

I think they at least have to be firearms.

 

[humbolt]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

I think they at least have to be firearms.

Okay. CB rounds only. If it rolls out the end of the barrel with a little "pop", there ya have it. 2nd fulfilled.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

Okay. CB rounds only. If it rolls out the end of the barrel with a little "pop", there ya have it. 2nd fulfilled.

The mind of a leftist is a very scary place...

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

it is the "enjoyment theory" of the 2A. Once someone pretends that the 2A is about what a citizen CAN DO rather than the proper interpretation of what the federal government cannot do (and that has nothing to do with what guns someone currently owns or what is currently on the market), the answer has to be YES

So why don't you tell us how if a person can exercise and enjoy his Second Amendment rights, they can claim to have had them violated at the same time?

If one is exercising and enjoying a right - it has by that very fact NOT been denied to them.

 

[humbolt]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

The mind of a leftist is a very scary place...

It's a world of false equivocation. A single is seen as exactly the same as a home run. A reasonable profit is viewed as the epitome of greed. A pop tart eaten to look like a gun is the same as a murdering. Weird. And pointing out that absurdity is viewed as a vicious personal attack.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

So why don't you tell us how if a person can exercise and enjoy his Second Amendment rights, they can claim to have had them violated at the same time?

If one is exercising and enjoying a right - it has by that very fact NOT been denied to them.

because the 2A is a restriction on what the government can do. The right is a pre-existing right that can never be violated. meaning, the fact that you bought gun 10 years ago does not allow the government to ban you buying one tomorrow

the "enjoyment" theory is specious because it is based on what a citizen has done, not what the government may not do

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

because the 2A is a restriction on what the government can do. The right is a pre-existing right that can never be violated. meaning, the fact that you bought gun 10 years ago does not allow the government to ban you buying one tomorrow

the "enjoyment" theory is specious because it is based on what a citizen has done, not what the government may not do

That does not answer the question. And its your illogical strawman that fails to do so. Obviously if government is allowing people to keep and bear arms then the right has NOT been infringed. Its gotta be one or the other.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

That does not answer the question. And its your illogical strawman that fails to do so. Obviously if government is allowing people to keep and bear arms then the right has NOT been infringed. Its gotta be one or the other.

so if the government allows people to attend methodist services but bans Lutheran services-I guess that means one's first amendment rights are still intact

your definition makes no sense because it bases what the government can DO on what citizens HAVE DONE

 

[haymarket]

Re: Make the case on why new machine guns should be banned

so if the government allows people to attend methodist services but bans Lutheran services-I guess that means one's first amendment rights are still intact

your definition makes no sense because it bases what the government can DO on what citizens HAVE DONE

I am talking about what government does.

You seem to be talking about the First Amendment with religious freedom. That is incorrect. We are talking about the Second Amendment not the First.