- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 122,485
- Reaction score
- 19,849
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How would gun control make guns available to fewer criminals? Criminals can get guns from all sorts of sources, some legal, some illegal. In fact, I think I have seen a manual of some sort circulating on the internet that essentially showed people how to manufacture guns in their own garage. Also, if the new process that you propose is onerous, it might make guns less available to law-abiding citizens.
So you believe in no gun control at all since criminals can get guns anyway.....right?
No. I said nothing of the sort. I was just posting some real concerns of mine, which I hoped you could address.
You want me to answer a question? From you? Lol
It's totally fine with me if you refuse to answer my questions. As for what you think of me, well, I really don't care.
Responsible gun owners won't have their guns taken away under any gun control I support. Not a single gun
What if the seller sands off the serial number on the gun? I know this is illegal, but some people do it anyway. This would make the gun un-traceable back to them.
You seem like a reasonably smart guy so let me ask you a few questions. No tricks...just straightforward questions. 1-Is the Ruger Ranch Rifle a 'military style weapon'?You are doing just what I said you would do in the other forum. You consistently ignore the rest of the decision in Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Now, what do you do about the weapons that are commonly not "in common use for lawful purposes"?
You seem like a reasonably smart guy so let me ask you a few questions. No tricks...just straightforward questions. 1-Is the Ruger Ranch Rifle a 'military style weapon'?
2-Im one of those that doesnt give half a **** if people call them military style weapons. Have you read the 2nd Amendment? DO you agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear military grade firearms as members of the militia and specifically to preserve the free state?
Or do you believe that somehow the 2nd Amendment was REALLY only meant to describe personal defense and hunting weapons and if you believe THAT, how do you manipulate the actual 2nd Amendment to reach that conclusion?
Yes, and it was the foundation for the M-4, and M-16. The designer of the AR-15 designed it for the military, and not for civilian use.
All one has to do is google "First Congress and Second Amendment Debate" and you will find a record of the debate there. No where is the private ownership of weapons mentioned save for as the Militia.
Really quite easy. The Framers understood the basic rights of the People, and they understood "Natural Rights". These are rights given by God, and they cannot be taken away, or regulated, by government. It is these rights that include the right to self defense, to hunting as a means of survival, etc. In these modern times the concept of Natural Rights has been lost, and the power to regular ones rights has been given to the government. Thus we hunt for the Kings deer, we rely on government for our self defense, we rely on government for our housing, and the list goes on. Do you think you own your home, or are you renting it from the government? What is the purpose of a hunting license save to get permission to hunt? In getting a CDL are you not seeking permission from the government to protect yourself?
May I suggest you do some research on Natural Rights v Government Rights.
Natural Law and Natural Rights - Online Library of Liberty
So YOU would define a military grade weapon as any semiautomatic firearm? You think the Ruger Ranch Rifle was designed as a precurser to the M16???Yes, and it was the foundation for the M-4, and M-16. The designer of the AR-15 designed it for the military, and not for civilian use.
All one has to do is google "First Congress and Second Amendment Debate" and you will find a record of the debate there. No where is the private ownership of weapons mentioned save for as the Militia.
Really quite easy. The Framers understood the basic rights of the People, and they understood "Natural Rights". These are rights given by God, and they cannot be taken away, or regulated, by government. It is these rights that include the right to self defense, to hunting as a means of survival, etc. In these modern times the concept of Natural Rights has been lost, and the power to regular ones rights has been given to the government. Thus we hunt for the Kings deer, we rely on government for our self defense, we rely on government for our housing, and the list goes on. Do you think you own your home, or are you renting it from the government? What is the purpose of a hunting license save to get permission to hunt? In getting a CDL are you not seeking permission from the government to protect yourself?
May I suggest you do some research on Natural Rights v Government Rights.
Natural Law and Natural Rights - Online Library of Liberty
that's complete nonsense. and tell me-in Constitutional terms-why it matters if the designer of a rifle was hoping for a military contract or not?
This is an asinine, and quite childish, question I always expect from the likes of you. There is not "Constitutional" issue here, it is one of personal opinion as to the dangers of certain types of guns. The designer of the weapon recognized that he was designing a weapon for the military, not for civilians.
So YOU would define a military grade weapon as any semiautomatic firearm? You think the Ruger Ranch Rifle was designed as a precurser to the M16???
You are correct in that the right to home defense, self defense and hunting were NATURAL rights. The 2nd Amendment is OBVIOUSLY a right to keep and bear military grade firearms for the defense of the free state. We KNOW 'the people' are the militia. We KNOW the militia (the people-not an organized military body) is seen as necessary to secure the free states. And we damn sure know what 'shall not be infringed' means. There have been many judgements by the courts but the judgments are in opposition to the 2nd. Unfortunately, far too many gun owners have allowed the argument to be framed incorrectly.
Wasn't his version fully automatic?
This is an asinine, and quite childish, question I always expect from the likes of you. There is not "Constitutional" issue here, it is one of personal opinion as to the dangers of certain types of guns. The designer of the weapon recognized that he was designing a weapon for the military, not for civilians.
in other words, you haven't a clue about this issue. Is K-bar knife more dangerous than a Randall Model 1?
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).
So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million
Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).
So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million
Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
So therefore you're not for banning any guns that are legal in this country today, right?
Again...THISJust the opposite.
AR-15 (CMMG M4 LE) and Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Carbines compared
It was to be organized, and trained. The difference was it was not to be permanent save for a small force to protect armories, or other related government structures. We now have a permanent military thus the need for a permanent state of war.
Just as an observation, in the days of the Founders, and until the early 1900's, when a person was released from prison he was given his gun, his horse (later it was a certain amount of money), and his freedom. We lost that understanding somewhere along the way. But then, I support open carry, mandatory military service, and ones right to protect himself, his family, his neighbor, and his property.
I just noticed this thread, so, if I'm a bit repetitious I apologize. The simple answer is there are no arguments against gun control - he have a highly restrictive web of gun control already. The argument shouldn't be frames as a "guns for everybody" or "take away all guns"; it's never been that.I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).
So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million
Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
I just noticed this thread, so, if I'm a bit repetitious I apologize. The simple answer is there are no arguments against gun control - he have a highly restrictive web of gun control already. The argument shouldn't be frames as a "guns for everybody" or "take away all guns"; it's never been that.
The basic fact is that the idea that more laws would stop every shooting is fallacious. There is no law on the book that has not been violated. People still drive drunk, beat up their spouses, rob, rape and pillage. Stuff happens and you can't regulate against all stuff.
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?