Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Are you arguing that the 2A gives one the right to own fighter jets, ICBMS, etc? Or that the framers always agreed with one another?
Hyperbole weakens your stance. The second amendment refers to the bearing of arms. A fighter jet is not an arm. It is a weapon systems platform capable of carrying a wide variety of munitions. It is more closely related to or a variation of a ship of the line or a smaller version of same; requiring multiple personel to function. The second amendment does not include ships or thier equivalent. Most hand held weaponry that you can physically arm yourself with would satisfy the interpretation of arms. A gatling gun would be an arm. I am not sure if a howitzer would, since this is a derivative of a cannon.
Adding ICBMS to your point weakens it. Whether the framers were in agreement is moot. They came to a consensus with the amendment.
Adding ICBMS to your point weakens it. Whether the framers were in agreement is moot. They came to a consensus with the amendment.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,087
- 13,611
What about suitcase nukes, then? ;O
Like others have pointed out, the Founding Fathers had some great ideas, but they weren't perfect human beings handing down perfect laws. Don't forget these are the types of guys that used to get shitfaced at pubs and trash the place.
- 6,338
- 7,144
I'll post this yet again. It's absolutely astonishing how the anti-gun nuts have absolutely no argument. Not a single leg to stand on. It's just ridiculous hyperbole and irrational thought. And it's still pretty amazing that even weak old socialized Canada has a higher rate of violent crime than the US.
Regardless of the definition of "arms", once again, the Amendments aren't interpreted how you've fashioned you're argument.
I wasn't being hyperbolic. I couldn't tell from your post if that was the point you were making. It seemed to me you were arguing that 2A would protect any weapon ever created, but I see I misunderstood. It only protects any arm ever created, you argue. Yet, your definition of arms is rather vague. Is it your definition that you've created, or gleaned from common sense, or is it from a case? Do grenades fit your definition? Shoulder mounted rockets?
How does the number of people who operate a weapon figure into your point? I'm not sure I understand your fourth sentence. Are you saying a ship of the line, a smaller version of a ship of the line, a fighter jet, or some combination of those options requires multiple personel to function? My guess is that you mean all of them, but my grandfather flew F-86's, which as you may know, can be operated by a single person.
Is your claim that the 2A gives (should give?) one the right to own and use any hand held weaponry that will ever be created? A gatling gun, of the sort I'm imagining at least, is not something I would call hand held, more like hand operated. Do you include all hand operated weapons? Only those generally operated by one person? Some states prohibit possessing nunchuks, are those arms?
You seem to have misunderstood me about the framers. I wasn't suggesting that their possible disagreement should have an effect on our interpretation of 2A; I'm not big into original intent. I was just asking whether you thought they all agreed on 2A, because you seemed to refer to them as a single group sharing the same intention.
Yes, but owning a gun doesn't turn you into a maniac. It reminds me of the argument that people are inherently evil and without God, Bible, or big government we just couldn't function as rational, intelligent human beings. The truth is that about 4% of our population are sociopaths and government regulation our not, murderers aren't going to follow the letter of the law and will use any manner of instruments to kill someone. So why are we focusing on removing the instrument instead of the sociopath is my question?
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,738
- 52,289
Because being a sociopath isn't a crime, and the majority of sociopaths aren't criminals?
Blazin
Creative Title
- 6,952
- 36,147
No you are ok on the crazy we are only concerned with all black weapons those are the truly deadly assault variety.Also I own one of these with multiple 30 round clips and several hundred rounds of ammunition. So yeah I guess I'm one of the "crazies".
- 6,338
- 7,144
Blazin
Creative Title
- 6,952
- 36,147
Blazin
Creative Title
- 6,952
- 36,147
Yes those are a little scary but releasing the used casing out the top instead of the side makes me feel its evens out, and come on it's wood!
- 6,338
- 7,144
That'd be a great litmus test for anti gun retards. Take that same gun and replace the wood stock with a black plastic stock, and they'd shit bricks over it.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,738
- 52,289
black plastic stock with a pistol grip and folding stock. ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!11!!1one
That wasn't my argument. I'm not saying we need to kill 4% of the population or put everyone in jail that we label a sociopath. With or without guns we will have those willing and capable of murder. Connecticut didn't happen because there just weren't enough gun laws on the books. Connecticut happened because a murderer was allowed to walk into a school. It happened because there wasn't lethal force to stop him. It happened because the warning signs weren't reported beforehand. It happened because local law enforcement couldn't respond before the destruction.
I was asking, how does targeting guns remove the murderer from that equation?
Guns are by far the easiest, quickest, and most accessible form of killing mass amounts of people.
By targeting the tool that murderers use we hamstring them, there is no way to get rid of murderers, but we get rid of their most deadly tool of choice.