Propose bill to allow concealed handgun on lawmakers including capital

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Li3n

@Li3n

Chibibar said:
Tru dat! but you can make bombs with low tech conditions. So I guess without guns, people just escalate to the next level.
Click to expand...
More likely they'll just go with knives actually....

Point was that you can track guns easier the drugs... (or explosives).
 
C

Chibibar

Yea... but I think with anything it is harder to regulate countries. So what if China decides to make their own guns? (why not, they make everything else) and sell to people who then sells to criminals? then what? put trade embargo against China?
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Ask them nicely for serial numbers and who they sold the guns in question too...

Of course you'll never stop it, but you can probably control it better then drugs that are already illegal... look at the british... their gun control works so well that most murders there are with knives...
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
The second amendment isn't about turning people into Police. It's about keeping them free from oppression.
Click to expand...
And we all know that having those extra bullets is the only thing standing between taking down that tank being used to oppress you and your liberties being taken away...
 
Krisken

Krisken

Gas, that is highly contested premise of the 2nd amendment and not relevant to the discussion. Banning the extended clip does not prevent the ownership of firearms.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
And we all know that having those extra bullets is the only thing standing between taking down that tank being used to oppress you and your liberties being taken away...
Click to expand...
Because we've all been shown by Iraq and Afghanistan that an indiginous population with small arms is completely powerless against an occupying force who has tanks.
Krisken said:
Gas, that is highly contested premise of the 2nd amendment and not relevant to the discussion. Banning the extended clip does not prevent the ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...
Just like banning gay marriage doesn't prevent homosexuals from being able to live together. That's highly contested too, now isn't it? No, Krisken, it's quite relevant to the discussion. The 2nd amendment was not about protecting your house from burglars, shooting animals or competing in marksmanship events. It's right there in the first sentence of the amendment - "being necessary for the security of a free state."

And don't pull out the old "well-regulated" retort either, it's already been shown that in the 18th century, regulated meant "trained and equipped," not restricted by law. And don't pull out the "yeah but they meant muskets" argument either. At that time, the musket was the most deadly instrument of violence able to be carried by one man alone.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is plain - the citizenry of the united states is intended to be able to hold its own against an actual army, be it that of a foreign power, or one of domestic oppression. Remember, the redcoats WERE "our" army in 1774, and they were one of the most advanced at the time.

It is, or for some people, SHOULD be, an issue of great concern that this right has been infringed so badly by those who would govern us, all in the name of "your own good" - the most dangerous and insidious political thinking since ancient man thought it might be nice if he had someone to do his labors for him, free of charge.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Because we've all been shown by Iraq and Afghanistan that an indiginous population with small arms is completely powerless against an occupying force who has tanks.
Click to expand...
Hell, even earlier than that. The only reason we call them Molotov Cocktails is because the Russian civilians used them so effectively against German tanks... and we wouldn't have the story of Marathon without the people of the city keeping the invading army from beaching. Time and time again it's been proven that an under armed but determined populace is an effective defense against an opposing force, as long as said force is unwilling to put every man, woman, and child to the sword in pursuit of victory.
 
Krisken

Krisken

The 2nd Amendment is NOT plain. There is a reason people have been arguing over it for over a century. It is plain to YOU, because that is how you choose to read it.

Clarity is less evident when you are willing to listen to opposing points of view.
 
C

Chibibar

Krisken said:
The 2nd Amendment is NOT plain. There is a reason people have been arguing over it for over a century. It is plain to YOU, because that is how you choose to read it.

Clarity is less evident when you are willing to listen to opposing points of view.
Click to expand...
I think the fore fathers choose the particular language so the future generations can "interpret" the way the society see fit, but the "dangerous" part would be..... which society?
the elites? (politicians, celebs, the rich) or the lobbyist? or the people?

While sometimes it is nice that some policies are "good for the people" there are some policies that we should look more into that some may consider "good for the people"
i.e. same sex marriages, abortions, right to bear arms, and freedom of speech.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Krisken said:
There is a reason people have been arguing over it for over a century.
Click to expand...
And that reason is the desire to have a passive and repressable electorate. Well, at the high levels it is. At the lower levels, it's the abhorrent idea that safety is more important than freedom.

It's not difficult to understand the meaning behind the amendment at all, it's one sentence:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first half says why, the second half says what. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There's no equivocation, limitation or stipulation as to WHICH arms shall be allowed, or how many, or what parts or accessories those arms are allowed to have.

Ironically, the abhorrent "Assault weapons" ban outlawed bayonet mounts... when the Uniform Militia Act of 1782 actually required every man between 18 and 45 to own a firearm with a bayonet.

But by far the most amusing part of this entire discussion is that my assertion that the 2nd amendment is about freedom from oppression is probably the least debated part of the amendment.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Again, you would be wrong.


Wiki article on 2nd amendment said:
Three grammatical interpretations traditionally informed jurists, scholars and the general public on interpretations of the Second Amendment.
One interpretation, known to grammarians as a nominative absolute construction, proposes the Second Amendment consists of an opening justification phrase or qualifying clause, followed by a declarative clause where the opening phrase modifies the main clause much as an adjective would modify a noun.[94][95][96][97] Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[98] This was a grammar structure that was common during that era.[99] This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.[100]
Another interpretation holds the Second Amendment contains an opening prefatory or amplifying clause followed by an operative clause.[19] The opening phrase is meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[19] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[101] In Heller, the Supreme Court endorsed this description of the Second Amendment.[102] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[95]
A third interpretation views the first clause as simply explanatory; neither a qualifying nor amplifying clause. So while militia service is the stated justification for protecting the right to keep and bear arms, it is not a pre-condition on that right.[103] Adherents to this interpretation observe that the latter clause of the amendment still guarantees the right to "the people," and, therefore, is not limited to members of a select militia.[104] This style of syntax was common for the time and similar language exists in the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[103]
Click to expand...
This is why talking with you on these subjects is nearly impossible. You refuse to admit that your preconceived notion has any valid detractors and assume that by repeating yourself all other view points are invalid.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Krisken said:
Again, you would be wrong.

This is why talking with you on these subjects is nearly impossible. You refuse to admit that your preconceived notion has any valid detractors and assume that by repeating yourself all other view points are invalid.
Click to expand...
None of those 3 viewpoints contradict me. None of them say it's about law enforcement or personal defense. They all talk about the point being the defense of freedom. They just quibble over whether it's "ONLY for the defense of freedom" or "for the defense of freedom among other things" or "for the defense of freedom and any other random purpose you can think of, whatever, go wild."
 
Mathias

Mathias

Gasbandit is a living version of this guy:




I'll be in the cold, cold ground before they pry my RPG-7 from my dead hands.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Because we've all been shown by Iraq and Afghanistan that an indiginous population with small arms is completely powerless against an occupying force who has tanks.
Click to expand...
Weird, last time i checked the Taliban and co. weren't really getting any of the "freedoms" they where fighting for, nor where they buying guns from the local gun store...
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
Weird, last time i checked the Taliban and co. weren't really getting any of the "freedoms" they where fighting for, nor where they buying guns from the local gun store...
Click to expand...
Which is why we had a big parade and came home and now live in total peace, since our tanks completely made them stop fighting and lay down arms!

Bonus: The local gun store is called "Iran."
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

@Li3n said:
Weird, last time i checked the Taliban and co. weren't really getting any of the "freedoms" they where fighting for, nor where they buying guns from the local gun store...
Click to expand...
The Taliban only has to survive until we leave, not defeat us. Once we do, the region will once again be at their mercy because they, not the peacefully folks we've been helping out, will have the means to take control... which is still proving our point: An unarmed populace is doomed to fall against it's oppressors, whether they be foreign or domestic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top