would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[ataraxia]

Like everyone arguing for more gun control you are missing the context. The context is enumerating which restrictions the court had no intention to strike down, not an open license to add more.

It was the opinion for Heller. Read it quite a bit.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

As weapons technology continues to advance, would you oppose any attempt at its regulation as unconstitutional?

 

[BahamaBob]

Who says?

Mexican cartels get most of their guns in gun shows in TX.

Chicago gangs get theirs at gun shows in Indiana.

Other than the fact that people banned from obtaining weapons can always get weapons all the stated facts in this post are totally false.

 

[OpportunityCost]

As weapons technology continues to advance, would you oppose any attempt at its regulation as unconstitutional?

That's entirely too wide open a question and I hope you can respect that answer.

 

[danielpalos]

Who says?

Mexican cartels get most of their guns in gun shows in TX.

Chicago gangs get theirs at gun shows in Indiana.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[ataraxia]

RE theoretical regulation on future advances in arms tech

That's entirely too wide open a question and I hope you can respect that answer.

If today, all we, and the government, and the burglars and muggers, still had were those 18th century front loading muskets, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Those muskets would be good enough to protect ourselves in our homes as well as act as a pretty good deterrent against potential government tyranny. The fundamental source of the controversy with the 2nd amendment today is the very different nature of today’s “arms” technology vs that of the 18th century

But the advances in weapons technology, particularly since about WWI, have been a complete game changer. To really have arms that could act as a deterrent to the government, even if you limit it to what an infantryman can carry, you would need arms that clearly very few civilians have the prudence, financial means, or battlefield experience to purchase and use.

The problem is that this technological advance is not going to stop. There is going to be continued advances, requiring new laws and regulations to keep up. This is, after all, what happens with continuing technological advances in all other areas: automobiles, airplanes, medicine, building codes, agriculture, computer science, etc...The only problem with guns is that gun rights advocates have this “slippery slope” fear of any further regulations when it comes to guns. Guns have been separated out from all those other areas by becoming something sacred and so beyond the realm of rational discussion, compromise, or regulation. So the tech continues to advance and disrupt, and unlike those other areas, the law can’t keep up because of these fears. You can see how the results have become uncomfortable at best, and will continue to get worse as the tech continues to change and grow.

So this theoretical question of whether you would be OK with any future arms regulation, as weapons technology continues to advance, tries to get at the heart of this question.

 

[zimmer]

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

Only if I wanted the criminals to overrun society.

Only if I wanted women defenseless. Easily subjected to rape and torture.

Then I would want the 2nd Amendment repealed... because criminals would not abide by the law... they would do as raw nature devoid of morality does... exploit weakness to its maximum.


This is what happens when barbarians are not halted with weapons. Warning... graphic:

 

[ataraxia]

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

So the only well regulated militia we have today is The National Guard.

 

[ataraxia]

Only if I wanted the criminals to overrun society.

Only if I wanted women defenseless. Easily subjected to rape and torture.

Then I would want the 2nd Amendment repealed... because criminals would not abide by the law... they would do as raw nature devoid of morality does... exploit weakness to its maximum.

All anyone needs for self defense is, at most, a small handgun. Not battlefield weapons.

 

[danielpalos]

So the only well regulated militia we have today is The National Guard.

States have their own State militias.

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.

 

[zimmer]

All anyone needs for self defense is, at most, a small handgun. Not battlefield weapons.

Your post reveals you seem totally ignorant about the subject. Like most Leftists. This is where the Goebbels Media has failed to inform the ignorant... like yourself.

Tell me, what is a battlefield weapon? An AR 15? Nope... that is a semi-automatic rifle... a glorified semi-auto-matic pistol with a totally different form... requiring two hands to fire.

The AR-15 and the pistol are both semi-automatic... yet you want to ban one because of how it looks?

Below is information you obviously have been denied:

This illustrates perfectly how the Goebbels Media has failed to inform the public about the simple basics about weapons.

It is not that difficult, yet they have produced a totally ignorant public... in an effort to push a political agenda. This is the hallmark of the Goebbels Media and Leftists... pure unadulterated ignorance.

A very short primer on weapons for Leftists:

There are automatic, semi-automatic and single-shot weapons.

Automatic guns are illegal. These are machine guns. You press the trigger and the bullets fly until you stop depressing the trigger. An exception to the rule is a Gatling Gun, but we’ve progressed far beyond that type of automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic: You must press the trigger for each bullet to be fired.

Single-shot: you load each bullet manually.
###

There are pistols, rifles and shot guns.

Pistols: revolver type (semi-automatic), semi-automatic with cartridge.

Rifles bolt action, lever action, semi-automatic.

Shot guns single shot, pump action, semi-automatic.

Like knives, bats, rakes, shovels, pitch-forks... guns are assault weapons if the individual chooses to use it so.

 

[zimmer]

All anyone needs for self defense is, at most, a small handgun. Not battlefield weapons.

For her, the AR 15 was a more manageable weapon. It saved her husband’s life. Like a pistol, it is semi-automatic... at its most basic... it’s just the form is different, requiring two hands to shoot.

Pregnant Florida mom uses AR-15 to kill home intruder

 

[ataraxia]

Your post reveals you seem totally ignorant about the subject. Like most Leftists. This is where the Goebbels Media has failed to inform the ignorant... like yourself.

Tell me, what is a battlefield weapon? An AR 15? Nope... that is a semi-automatic rifle... a glorified semi-auto-matic pistol with a totally different form... requiring two hands to fire.

Please, spare me your professorship. You don't know more than this 4-star general:

"“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.

We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population. Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”-
- Gen. Stanley McChrystal

 

[ataraxia]

For her, the AR 15 was a more manageable weapon. It saved her husband’s life. Like a pistol, it is semi-automatic... at its most basic... it’s just the form is different, requiring two hands to shoot.

Pregnant Florida mom uses AR-15 to kill home intruder

So she could have done that with a handgun. What's your point?

 

[ataraxia]

States have their own State militias.

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.

The 2A starts out talking about only the well regulated kind. Why would they do that?

 

[OpportunityCost]

RE theoretical regulation on future advances in arms tech



If today, all we, and the government, and the burglars and muggers, still had were those 18th century front loading muskets, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Those muskets would be good enough to protect ourselves in our homes as well as act as a pretty good deterrent against potential government tyranny. The fundamental source of the controversy with the 2nd amendment today is the very different nature of today’s “arms” technology vs that of the 18th century

But the advances in weapons technology, particularly since about WWI, have been a complete game changer. To really have arms that could act as a deterrent to the government, even if you limit it to what an infantryman can carry, you would need arms that clearly very few civilians have the prudence, financial means, or battlefield experience to purchase and use.

The problem is that this technological advance is not going to stop. There is going to be continued advances, requiring new laws and regulations to keep up. This is, after all, what happens with continuing technological advances in all other areas: automobiles, airplanes, medicine, building codes, agriculture, computer science, etc...The only problem with guns is that gun rights advocates have this “slippery slope” fear of any further regulations when it comes to guns. Guns have been separated out from all those other areas by becoming something sacred and so beyond the realm of rational discussion, compromise, or regulation. So the tech continues to advance and disrupt, and unlike those other areas, the law can’t keep up because of these fears. You can see how the results have become uncomfortable at best, and will continue to get worse as the tech continues to change and grow.

So this theoretical question of whether you would be OK with any future arms regulation, as weapons technology continues to advance, tries to get at the heart of this question.

Its not a slippery slope. Many gun control advocates have total gun confiscation in mind as their stated goal.

 

[ataraxia]

Its not a slippery slope. Many gun control advocates have total gun confiscation in mind as their stated goal.

Sure. And there are gun advocates with no regulations at all as their stated goal. Let's not waste our time with the positions of radical extreme groups. If I assure you that most gun control advocates do NOT have total gun confiscation as a stated goal, would you agree that at least in theory, SOME gun control measures are necessary and not a slippery slope?

For example, for me, the measures the have in Israel seems very reasonable. And if anyone should know about terrorism and private citizens being able to protect themselves, it should be them.

Gun laws in Israel are comprehensive despite soldiers being allowed to carry their service weapons on or off duty. Civilians must obtain a firearms license to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition. In 2018, Israel significantly loosened firearms restrictions, allowing all citizens who had undergone combat training and qualified in Advanced Infantry Training ('Rifleman "07"') to apply for a private handgun license.[197]

Prior to 2018, only a small group of people had been eligible for firearms licenses: certain retired military personnel, police officers or prison guards; residents of settlements (in the West Bank and the Golan Heights) or those who often work in such towns; and licensed hunters and animal-control officers. Age requirements vary: 21 for those who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 otherwise, and 45 for non-citizens. Firearm license applicants must have been a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check (criminal, health, and mental history), establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course.[198] Around 40% of applications for firearms permits were rejected.[199]

Those holding firearms licenses must renew them and pass a shooting course every three years. Security guards must pass these tests to renew their license to carry firearms belonging to their employers.[200] Applicants must demonstrate that they have a safe at their residence in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, and holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun and purchase an annual supply of 50 cartridges (although more may be purchased to replace rounds used at a firing range).[201]

In addition to private licenses of firearms, organizations can issue carry-licenses to their members or employees for activity related to that organization (e.g. security companies, shooting clubs, other workplaces). Members of officially recognized shooting clubs (e.g.: practical shooting, Olympic shooting) are eligible for personal licenses allowing them to possess additional firearms (small bore rifles, handguns, air rifles and air pistols) and ammunition after demonstrating a need and fulfilling minimum membership time and activity requirements. Unlicensed individuals who want to engage in practice shooting are allowed supervised use of handguns at firing ranges.

Most individuals who are licensed to possess handguns may carry them loaded in public, concealed or openly.[198]
Overview of gun laws by nation - Wikipedia

 

[OpportunityCost]

Sure. And there are gun advocates with no regulations at all as their stated goal. Let's not waste our time with the positions of radical extreme groups. If I assure you that most gun control advocates do NOT have total gun confiscation as a stated goal, would you agree that at least in theory, SOME gun control measures are necessary and not a slippery slope?

For example, for me, the measures the have in Israel seems very reasonable. And if anyone should know about terrorism and private citizens being able to protect themselves, it should be them.

A few of the Democratic ones are running for President. A few more are in Congress. Lets not pretend that those that want this are radical and extreme on the gun ban issue, they are a minority but not seen as radical or extreme.

Who is it stating they want no gun regulation at all? I would care to see some examples.


Military service in Israel is required, self defense is a given, and I am okay with the background check so long as it is not used to form a database on the part of the feds (already ruled to be unconstitutional because it interferes in privacy to exercise a constitutional right).

 

[danielpalos]

The 2A starts out talking about only the well regulated kind. Why would they do that?

It says so in the first clause. It doesn't say the People which would include the unorganized militia. There is no Thing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

Its not a slippery slope. Many gun control advocates have total gun confiscation in mind as their stated goal.

This is no slippery slope:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[marke]

I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

Let's revoke the right of Constitution-hating radical leftist democrats to vote.

 

[OpportunityCost]

This is no slippery slope:

I'm not entertaining your nonsense, you have no idea what the prefatory and necessary clauses are and why they kill your argument. The militia is potentially all of the people. Congress has no power to regulate all of the country's lives and was never intended to, contrary to your constant attempt to say they do.

 

[zimmer]

Sure. And there are gun advocates with no regulations at all as their stated goal. Let's not waste our time with the positions of radical extreme groups. If I assure you that most gun control advocates do NOT have total gun confiscation as a stated goal, would you agree that at least in theory, SOME gun control measures are necessary and not a slippery slope?

For example, for me, the measures the have in Israel seems very reasonable. And if anyone should know about terrorism and private citizens being able to protect themselves, it should be them.

Total gun confiscation from law abiding citizens is the goal...

Just as CommiCare healthcare is the goal.

Leftist like to chip away at our Liberties little by little... because proposing their idiocies outright would have them shock the electorate... and lose elections miserably.

Obama is not against the candidates and their ideas... he is warning them because he knows they are going for too big a bite at the Apple.. exposing the Left’s true aims.

Just look at how Warren tanked... because she revealed details about her idiocies.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It says so in the first clause. It doesn't say the People which would include the unorganized militia. There is no Thing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land.

The prefatory clause is dependent upon the necessary clause and that states the people. Your argument has been rejected in multiple SCOTUS cases as all of the people can comprise the militia, but that the government can only regulate those actively called up as militia.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not entertaining your nonsense, you have no idea what the prefatory and necessary clauses are and why they kill your argument. The militia is potentially all of the people. Congress has no power to regulate all of the country's lives and was never intended to, contrary to your constant attempt to say they do.

Only well regulated militia is expressly declared in the first clause not the whole and entire People which would include the unorganized militia. You have nothing but right wing propaganda.

 

[danielpalos]

The prefatory clause is dependent upon the necessary clause and that states the people. Your argument has been rejected in multiple SCOTUS cases as all of the people can comprise the militia, but that the government can only regulate those actively called up as militia.

The first clause is declaratory and includes the term Necessary not the second clause. You have nothing but hearsay and soothsay which is typically, right wing propaganda.