- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Of course I can't see the purpose of these prohibitionist strategies that others push, particularly the minimum age restrictions
So you think a five-year-old should be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a gun and ammo without anyone asking any questions whatsoever?
I wasn't aware that there was a substantial insurgency in existence, or that they possessed military-grade weaponry. Has this been published in a mises.org blog post that I'm unaware of?
So, what was your point then, oh brilliant one? Rage said we have weapons in case we need to overthrow the government. You implied that this was not feasible because the government has super-awesome military technology. Apparently, you know something about military strategy and tactics that I don't because I always thought counter-insurgency operations were a lot more complex than simply having nice fighter jets and shiny weapons.
Please, enlighten me as to your unique viewpoint; wow me with your vast reservoir of military knowledge. I’m ever so anxious!
Actually, no, it would be unfeasible in the case of both wide distribution of military-grade weaponry among state personnel...
...and a lack of sufficient political turbulence to spark a violent insurrection, both of which are factors that prevent it. Shocking though it might sound, the lack of any substantial insurgency might also prove to be a complication. Believe it or not, your backyard picnic doesn't count.
What's that got to do with anything? You just give government personnel some "military grade weaponry" and the war is over? Just like that, huh?
Hold on, I have to get in touch with General Petraeus, I just found out how to win in Afghanistan.
Petraeus: Give the troops guns? Nice ones? Really!? I never thought of that before! Thanks!
Nobody's contesting the current absence of an insurgency, nor is anyone contesting the fact that the lack of an insurgency precludes the successful overthrow of a tyrannical government. Please give your army of straw men the order to withdraw from intellectual combat.
You might have to get General Petraeus in Afghanistan first, since he doesn't happen to be there at the moment. Shocking, I know, but it's not exactly top-secret information limited to us classified folk. :2wave:
That situation is one that involves belligerents all in control of military-grade weaponry, many of them in illegal control of it. Squabbling about the legal right to control far weaker weaponry is of little consequence in the case of the development of an actual insurgency, in which case military-grade and unconventional weaponry would likely be seized and hoarded, unless you're planning on taking out an Abrams with your trusty Glock.
Yes, I'm aware. Apparently, you're unfamiliar with his role as the Commander of CENTCOM.
Yea, rifles and machine guns are of no use to any insurgency. Good point.
That's pleasantly archaic, considering the advent of military-grade technology that can blow you and your little peashooter into smithereens. :shrug:
As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with YOU, I will give merit to YOURS.As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, I will give merit to your argument.
Given that it was well-publicized news, I'm afraid not. It's just perhaps evidence of your unfamiliarity with chain-of-command issues (it's a bit more complicated than hamburger externalities, you see) that you'd not be interested in addressing so unlikely a figure as say...the commander in Afghanistan? :shrug:
It seems, then, that referring to ownership of civilian-grade technology as a necessary means of revolting against the government when the time comes is rather hopeless.
What you forget:The Commander of CENTCOM is responsible for the entire Middle Eastern theater; that includes Afghanistan.
What's "civilian-grade technology"?
Not sure what you mean... the laws prohibiting yelling fire in a theater are not unconstitutional because doing so is not 'free speech' in that it places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.:fyi: They are not unconstitutional for the same reason that shouting "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater is not unconstitutional.
Not sure what you mean... the laws prohibiting yelling fire in a theater are not unconstitutional because doing so is not 'free speech' in that it places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
Not sure what you mean... the laws prohibiting yelling fire in a theater are not unconstitutional because doing so is not 'free speech' in that it places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
I would say that a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
Nuclear weapons aren't 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.I would say that a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
"Fire in a theater" is analogous to firing a gun into the air while within city limits."You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater!!!!!!" OK, then what? It justifies no specific limitation on any other right.
What do you define as reasonable restrictions to the second amendment? This is mostly aimed at the 35 plus people who voted in this thread. Everybody has their own interpretation of what exactly is "reasonable".
Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons
Fire arms/weapons registrations
Waiting Periods.
Laws governing how firearms are to be stored.
Firearms/weapon class requirement.
Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)
Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)
Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify)
Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify)
ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify)
other(please specify)
It is my belief that you do not need permission from the government in order to exercise a right. It is also my belief that our founding forefathers created the second amendment as a means for individuals to protect themselves and loved ones, to to protect this country if it was ever invaded, and to over throw the government if it became too tyrannical/ corrupt. So the government therefore has no business restricting any firearms or which law abiding citizens can own firearms.
This poll is pretty meaningless in that many of the choices already exist as laws.
snip....
Other than the BAN on weapons which many on the left are attempting to promote, where is the choice for "Leave current laws in place," or "enforce existing laws?"
I am struggling to see a point.
That's because, to most, "reasnoable" means "what I think is a good idea".The point is to see what "Reasonable restrictions" means to those who claim to support reasonable restrictions or reasonable gun laws, what is reasonable to one person is not to another person.
Most states do not have waiting periods, back ground checks, permits/licenses, fire arms registration or laws on how firearms should be stored.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : State Gun Laws
The point is to see what "Reasonable restrictions" means to those who claim to support reasonable restrictions or reasonable gun laws, what is reasonable to one person is not to another person.
Three things; using the Brady web site for any argument on second amendment rights is beyond laughable and borders on disbelief;
two, the amusing thing about the Brady scoring system is that the states they rate the highest for their gun laws also happen to have the highest rates of gun violence;
and three, is it your contention that States do not have the right to legislate their own needs as it relates to gun laws as long as they do not violate the second amendment?
That is not a point; a point would be to determine a consensus for what is deemed to be "reasonable." Good luck with that one though. :rofl
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?