The 2nd Amendment's rogue

[M14 Shooter]

The miller case stated if a firearm has a militia use it is protected by the 2ndamend. The 2nd amend protects the right of the people to bear arms. So if the so called pro right to bear arms people are going to use the miller case why are guns banned in some states?
This shoots a hole in your claim.

No, it doesnt.

MY "claim" is that the argument that allows these weapons to be banned is that you dont have the right to own them. This is absolutely true.

You're mistaking my statement of the argument for making the argument myself.

 

[DHard3006]

MY "claim" is that the argument that allows these weapons to be banned is that you dont have the right to own them. This is absolutely true.

No where does the 2nd amend mention militia use to bear arms.
The miller case is a case the gun hater use to defend control laws. So since the miller case states a firearm must have a militia use that would protect military type firearms. The type of firearms banned under so called assault weapon bans.

So using the miller case logic anything that has a militia use is protected by the 2nd amend.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No where does the 2nd amend mention militia use to bear arms.
The miller case is a case the gun hater use to defend control laws. So since the miller case states a firearm must have a militia use that would protect military type firearms. The type of firearms banned under so called assault weapon bans.

So using the miller case logic anything that has a militia use is protected by the 2nd amend.

Yes.... but as you clearly fail to comprehend, the argument is that the 2nd doesnt protect the individual right to own ANY weapon.

The weapon may be protected, but argument says that since you dont have the right to own it, you can still be banned FROM owning it.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[DHard3006]

Yes.... but as you clearly fail to comprehend, the argument is that the 2nd doesnt protect the individual right to own ANY weapon.

The gun haters and so called pro right to bear arms people using the miller case claim it does.
No where in the miller case or any law book is there a requirement to be in a militia to bear arms.

The weapon may be protected, but argument says that since you dont have the right to own it, you can still be banned FROM owning it.

What is wrong with your logic here is simple. You are attempting to play that catch 22 bs.
The 2nd amend states the right of the people.

This isn't rocket science.

Neither are you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree with the previous poster:
You need to take some courses in reading comprehension.

Breath mints, too.


So, did AOL ever let you back on?

 

[DHard3006]

I agree with the previous poster:
You need to take some courses in reading comprehension.

Breath mints, too.

Typical leftist attacks. You cannot defend your argument so you use insults.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Typical leftist attacks. You cannot defend your argument so you use insults.

LOL
Thats amazing.

Well, Dick-Head 3006, back into the pit with you.

You arent going to stalk me like you did Hope, are you?

 

[DHard3006]

back into the pit with you.

Running and hide is typical leftist logic.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is what the 2nd amend states.

Oh wait the gun haters will spew the well regulated militia line.

I am not in a militia.

Membership in a militia is not required to bear arms.

 

[RightinNYC]

Mod-mode

Let's all behave ourselves now, alright?

/Mod Mode

 

[TurtleDude]

could someone explain to me why M14 and DHard are having a pssing contest when they both are on the right/correct side of this argument:doh

 

[galenrox]

Running and hide is typical leftist logic.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is what the 2nd amend states.

Oh wait the gun haters will spew the well regulated militia line.

I am not in a militia.

Membership in a militia is not required to bear arms.

wait...so you're calling m14 shooter a leftist? And running and hiding is leftist a tool, that's why Bush isn't pushing for social security anymore, right?:roll:

You what are actual signs of someone running and hiding? Applying cute little nicknames to classify everyone who doesn't agree with exactly what you believe, calling them "gun haters" or "god haters" or "America haters". You and I both know these nicknames have nothing to do with the actual debate, so why do you use them? Considering that you don't really argue with much else, it would seem to try to end a debate, to get off a sinking ship if you will.

If you interpret the second ammendment as meaning that the founding fathers intended no regulation in the arms market, even in the situation where there are now guns that can fire hundreds of times faster than the best guns that existed then, and bullets made specifically for the purpose of getting through police bulletproof vests, you would have to assume that the founding fathers were a bunch of retarded braying jackasses.
But considering that we do know that they were some of the most brilliant men to ever live, I think that would imply that they intended the ammendment to allow reason to be applied.
And I'm not talking about lots of gun control, I'm not a supporter of that, but when it comes to selling a machine gun to a guy who just got out of prison and probably has some sort of a chip on his shoulder, it is just simple logic to say "no." When it comes to making bullets tracable, so that in the case that someone shoots someone else, or someone does anything else illegal with a gun, they would be able to be brought to justice, that's reasonable. It says our right to bear arms will not be abridged, and I agree, but stop being a logic hater (oh ho ho!)

 

[TurtleDude]

no one denies the individual right can be lost due through being a felon. traceable bullets? the purpose of that is to jack up the cost of shooting to diminish people participating in shooting sports. Do you think felons planning on wasting someone is going to use bullets traceable to them? do you know anything about the fact that many shooters use cast bullets and making them is rather easy?

please cite the section of the constitution that empowers the FEDERAL government to regulate small arms

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh BTW- in 1718 there was a gun that was rapid fire. while some handheld submachine guns are rated at 1300 rounds a minute, in reality, barrel heating and magazine changes make it far less-sort of like saying a cheetah can run 60 MPH but noting that a cheetah can not run 60 miles in a hour

the concept of a machine gun was far easier to anticipate in 1790 then the concept of a high speed internet, a television or a radio which are all clearly covered by the first amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you interpret the second ammendment as meaning that the founding fathers intended no regulation in the arms market, even in the situation where there are now guns that can fire hundreds of times faster than the best guns that existed then, and bullets made specifically for the purpose of getting through police bulletproof vests, you would have to assume that the founding fathers were a bunch of retarded braying jackasses.

The Fathers unquestionably intended the people to always have access to weapons suitable for use in assisting and/or resisting the standing army, whenever necessary. The inescapable conclusion from this is that if the military uses the M16A2, then the people have a right to own one as well.

But considering that we do know that they were some of the most brilliant men to ever live, I think that would imply that they intended the ammendment to allow reason to be applied.

"Shall not be infringed". Doesnt leave much wiggle room.

And I'm not talking about lots of gun control, I'm not a supporter of that, but when it comes to selling a machine gun to a guy who just got out of prison and probably has some sort of a chip on his shoulder, it is just simple logic to say "no."

Felons have no right to own a gun. You're arguing a strawman.

When it comes to making bullets tracable, so that in the case that someone shoots someone else, or someone does anything else illegal with a gun, they would be able to be brought to justice, that's reasonable.

You dont need a law for this - all guns have a ballistic fingerprint.

It says our right to bear arms will not be abridged, and I agree, but stop being a logic hater (oh ho ho!)

Shall not be infringed. Thats a far more powerful protection.

 

[M14 Shooter]

could someone explain to me why M14 and DHard are having a pssing contest when they both are on the right/correct side of this argument:doh

DH has a significant mental defect - he doesnt actually read what you say.

 

[galenrox]

no one denies the individual right can be lost due through being a felon. traceable bullets? the purpose of that is to jack up the cost of shooting to diminish people participating in shooting sports. Do you think felons planning on wasting someone is going to use bullets traceable to them? do you know anything about the fact that many shooters use cast bullets and making them is rather easy?

please cite the section of the constitution that empowers the FEDERAL government to regulate small arms

I don't want to jack up the price in bullets, cause I wouldn't be able to afford them, at least jack them up much, so let's not try to put false justifications for why I suggest what I've suggested and actually talk about what I've suggested. Let's just say that we set up an internet site that only police forces have access to, but Walmart and KMart can post on, and just have it required upon a bullet purchase you fill out a form with your name and SSN, that's it. It's not a perfect plan, but it's with minimal inconvinience and it would serve a purpose, and it would make buying bullets to commit crimes more expensive and thus less attractive, because if you were going to purchase bullets outside of the system, you'd have to buy them black market, and thus more expensive, while if you're buying them for legal purposes, then there's no problem.

 

[DHard3006]

that's why Bush isn't pushing for social security anymore, right?

Bush bashing threads are down the hall and to the left.

calling them "gun haters" or "god haters" or "America haters".

These names are applied to people that want to take a right away from people.

so why do you use them?

Descriptive of what the person is. Now as for insults I leave that to the leftist.

guns that can fire hundreds of times faster than the best guns that existed then, and bullets made specifically for the purpose of getting through police bulletproof vests,

At the time of the FF the firearm in use by the UK was state of the art. Far superior to the guns used before it was adopted for use.
As for you vest rant. You may wish to read up on them before you run off at the mouth about them.

you would have to assume that the founding fathers were a bunch of retarded braying jackasses.

Now I leave this form of insulting to the leftist.

but when it comes to selling a machine gun to a guy who just got out of prison and probably has some sort of a chip on his shoulder, it is just simple logic to say "no."

Why would you want such a dangerous person out of prison?

When it comes to making bullets tracable, so that in the case that someone shoots someone else, or someone does anything else illegal with a gun, they would be able to be brought to justice, that's reasonable.

This is just another way gun haters will force the cost of using firearms up with the hope of forcing people to not purchase them. It is interesting how gun haters demand the firearms industry develop this. Why is this? Because it is impossible. So gun haters if this is such a good thing why cannot a gun hater develop it?

 

[galenrox]

The Fathers unquestionably intended the people to always have access to weapons suitable for use in assisting and/or resisting the standing army, whenever necessary. The inescapable conclusion from this is that if the military uses the M16A2, then the people have a right to own one as well.

I agree 100%

"Shall not be infringed". Doesnt leave much wiggle room.

I agree

Felons have no right to own a gun. You're arguing a strawman.

Excuse me? When did I claim you were arguing against it? I didn't say a single thing claiming you were for giving cons guns, and thus it's not a straw argument AT ALL under any possible interpretation. Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons is all I really want anyways.

You dont need a law for this - all guns have a ballistic fingerprint.

So thus all shootings where bullets are found have been solved, right?

Shall not be infringed. Thats a far more powerful protection.

ok....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's just say that we set up an internet site that only police forces have access to, but Walmart and KMart can post on, and just have it required upon a bullet purchase you fill out a form with your name and SSN, that's it.

What does this accomplish?

 

[galenrox]

What does this accomplish?

If we know who owns what type of bullet, then identifying the type of bullet would then knock off a large portion of the gun owning community from suspect, plus you could then have a list of people, from which you could check who was in the general area, and in general just make it easier for the police to solve crimes. Also, if you were intending to commit a crime when you purchased the bullets you'd have to buy them black market, and thus creating a system where you raise the cost of bullets for criminals without really increasing the price of bullets for legal gun owners.
It's an idea.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree 100%

If you agree 100% that the father intended the 2nd to cover the right to own an M16A2, then why did you say:
If you interpret the second ammendment as meaning that the founding fathers intended no regulation in the arms market, even in the situation where there are now guns that can fire hundreds of times faster than the best guns that existed then....you would have to assume that the founding fathers were a bunch of retarded braying jackasses.

Excuse me? When did I claim you were arguing against it? I didn't say a single thing claiming you were for giving cons guns, and thus it's not a straw argument AT ALL under any possible interpretation. Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons is all I really want anyways.

You said:
I'm not a supporter of that, but when it comes to selling a machine gun to a guy who just got out of prison and probably has some sort of a chip on his shoulder, it is just simple logic to say "no."

You say this as if this is legal

So thus all shootings where bullets are found have been solved, right?

That they havent in no way changes the fact that every gun already has a unique fingerprint.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we know who owns what type of bullet, then identifying the type of bullet would then knock off a large portion of the gun owning community from suspect, plus you could then have a list of people, from which you could check who was in the general area, and in general just make it easier for the police to solve crimes.

This is only true if you track every bullet sold everywhere at every time.

What about mail-order ammo?
Or handloads?
Or straw purchases?

 

[galenrox]

If you agree 100% that the father intended the 2nd to cover the right to own an M16A2, then why did you say:
If you interpret the second ammendment as meaning that the founding fathers intended no regulation in the arms market, even in the situation where there are now guns that can fire hundreds of times faster than the best guns that existed then....you would have to assume that the founding fathers were a bunch of retarded braying jackasses.

I think that the government should have some oversight, I think it should be watched. If it's being watched, and felons don't have guns, and minors aren't buying guns on their own, I believe that anyone should be able to own just about anything, but definately at least the M16A2

You said:
I'm not a supporter of that, but when it comes to selling a machine gun to a guy who just got out of prison and probably has some sort of a chip on his shoulder, it is just simple logic to say "no."

You say this as if this is legal

If you noticed, I was criticising DHard or whatever he's called. I've noticed him arguing against keeping guns away from felons, or at least he said something along the lines of "If they can't be trusted with guns, why are they allowed out of prison." It wasn't aimed at anything you said.

That they havent in no way changes the fact that every gun already has a unique fingerprint.

So what do you suggest? I mean, we both promote responsible gun ownership, and we both hate people who misuse guns because it's crap like that that makes it harder for us, and so we should be trying to find a way to make it easy to catch people who misuse guns without effecting responsible legal gun owners in any real way, so do you have any suggestions?

 

[galenrox]

This is only true if you track every bullet sold everywhere at every time.

What about mail-order ammo?
Or handloads?
Or straw purchases?

I dunno, what do you think?

 

[DHard3006]

I've noticed him arguing against keeping guns away from felons, or at least he said something along the lines of "If they can't be trusted with guns, why are they allowed out of prison."

See how gun haters lie. I simple asked this gun hater ”Why would you want such a dangerous person out of prison?”
This question is to hard for gun haters to answer. Because without dangerous criminals out of prison gun haters cannot demand gun control laws.