Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Herald of War's avatar

Chatty Reveler

3,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
shinigami ryukie
While the way he worded/said it was rather harsh. He has a point. If we throw out one amendment we might as well throw out any one, and If we lose the 2nd amendment we lose the ability to defend the from the lose of the others.


Never had the ability in the first place, Action Hero.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Kaltros
False Dichotomy
The New Wineskin

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.
It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.


If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?
Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right.
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Quote:
Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

Quote:
When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.
No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
The Herald of War's avatar

Chatty Reveler

3,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Conversationalist 100
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Kaltros
False Dichotomy
The New Wineskin
False Dichotomy
It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.
It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.


If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?
Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right. Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law


When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.


Nope. You'd have to establish what 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' means exactly to determine that. If I'm only allowed muskets then I certainly do have the right to keep and bear arms. So the question is what is the original scope. Or perhaps better, what is a reasonable scope as the original didn't refer to our modern weapons. It doesn't say ALL arms, just arms. I could say you have the same right to bear arms they did in the past if I let you have a musket. That's what they had, right? It's easily open to interpretation.
Fire 0ak's avatar

Buggy Mage

YahuShalum
Fire 0ak
That's a very extreme example and certainly not a good way to gather support. I think the better thing to say would be that if they take away the right to self defense then we shouldn't be too surprised if they try to take away our freedom of speech away eventually.
They have been taking our freedom of speech away. They have been infringing on our right to protest. (Forcing us to have permits and be sanctioned in protest zones is infringement.)
I agree with that. It seems as though the spontaneous nature of protesting(which imo, is a large credit to it's effectiveness) is often stopped short at every opportunity. That's why I found the Wall Street Protests to be particularly Inspiring. I think bold acts tend to inspire the masses, and the Government fears that.
My worry is that if they know the public has no meaningful way to resist tyranny, what would stop them from trying to do more outrageous things to our society.
shinigami ryukie
While the way he worded/said it was rather harsh. He has a point. If we throw out one amendment we might as well throw out any one, and If we lose the 2nd amendment we lose the ability to defend the from the lose of the others.

I like you. I like this logic. Especially since I can actually see the precedent of an amendment being gutted being used to shred others. I'm actually amazed no one is bringing up the idea of introducing an amendment to nullify the 2nd, since the precedent is there with the 21st nullifying the 18th. At least, major politician wise. Then again, I imagine they would be eaten alive preferably on webcam and by the crazy politicians from the south; also I apologize if me saying this jinxes things


YahuShalum

You. I also like you. Inalienable rights indeed, not special government granted privilege we need to take away to give others a false sense of security.

Minor note, 10 round magazine is the more accurate term. Remember, clips are for strippers. Literally- clips refer to stripper clips. Though you could argue the misuse has given it another meaning entirely...
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Kaltros
False Dichotomy
It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.


If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?
Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right.
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Quote:
Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

Quote:
When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.
No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
You're right BUT.

This is the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now add in the second amendment. They placed it there for a reason. It is there for the people not the state to be able to take out a tyrannical government. We have to keep everything in context. What's your line in the sand? When would you support an armed revolution or would you always trust in the government no matter how poorly they treat you. Now when your line in the sand get's crossed would you be wanting your firearms? What if China invades? Will you welcome them with open arms or will you wish to have a firearm that can match their firepower and give you an edge. This is a personal choice and you may be willing to handle a more tyrannical government hell you might promote a communist state like China and agree with forced abortions of females and a one child policy. But if you don't, are you willing to fight against it? And if you're ever willing to fight, we both know you'll want good weapons able to even the odds more. Us being pro-gun is in support of your freedoms as well as ours. Sorry that it's our line in the sand because once they get the guns governments can do as they wish.
The Herald of War
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Kaltros
False Dichotomy
It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.


If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?
Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right. Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law


When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.


Nope. You'd have to establish what 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' means exactly to determine that. If I'm only allowed muskets then I certainly do have the right to keep and bear arms. So the question is what is the original scope. Or perhaps better, what is a reasonable scope as the original didn't refer to our modern weapons. It doesn't say ALL arms, just arms. I could say you have the same right to bear arms they did in the past if I let you have a musket. That's what they had, right? It's easily open to interpretation.
Look into civilians owning cannons back then. Also, Blackwater: a private civilian ran organization of mercenaries operating out of the United States. Seems money can buy you anything. So I will say yes if you have the money you could own a nuke. Rich people own 50 cal machine guns. Not like they're using those to shoot people. This is class warfare, these suggested regulations won't effect the rich only the poor. Not like a poor person could ever own an Apache helicopter, or a suitcase nuke. (I'm taking an extremist point but it's practically true, have enough money, buy out congress, get your actual military weapons)

The original scope is to be able to defend yourself from the government. Take the Declaration of Independence into account.
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

The New Wineskin
False Dichotomy
It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.
[Informative]

Because it's another case of white people appropriating the struggles of people they oppressed in order to justify a position.

It's ******** gross.
Brass_Magnet
shinigami ryukie
While the way he worded/said it was rather harsh. He has a point. If we throw out one amendment we might as well throw out any one, and If we lose the 2nd amendment we lose the ability to defend the from the lose of the others.

I like you. I like this logic. Especially since I can actually see the precedent of an amendment being gutted being used to shred others. I'm actually amazed no one is bringing up the idea of introducing an amendment to nullify the 2nd, since the precedent is there with the 21st nullifying the 18th. At least, major politician wise. Then again, I imagine they would be eaten alive preferably on webcam and by the crazy politicians from the south; also I apologize if me saying this jinxes things


YahuShalum

You. I also like you. Inalienable rights indeed, not special government granted privilege we need to take away to give others a false sense of security.

Minor note, 10 round magazine is the more accurate term. Remember, clips are for strippers. Literally- clips refer to stripper clips. Though you could argue the misuse has given it another meaning entirely...
Oh my I need to keep up on my terminology. Must be me reading too many democrat bills using bad terms... Sorry for my ignorance! haha But yeah, everyone has their line in the sand and if the government crosses it they will wish they had a way to remove that government. Especially if the democratic process is hogwash and you can't vote them out unless only to replace them with the same old same old just a new face.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Kaltros


If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?
Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right.
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Quote:
Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

Quote:
When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.
No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
You're right BUT.

This is the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now add in the second amendment. They placed it there for a reason. It is there for the people not the state to be able to take out a tyrannical government. We have to keep everything in context. What's your line in the sand? When would you support an armed revolution or would you always trust in the government no matter how poorly they treat you. Now when your line in the sand get's crossed would you be wanting your firearms? What if China invades? Will you welcome them with open arms or will you wish to have a firearm that can match their firepower and give you an edge. This is a personal choice and you may be willing to handle a more tyrannical government hell you might promote a communist state like China and agree with forced abortions of females and a one child policy. But if you don't, are you willing to fight against it? And if you're ever willing to fight, we both know you'll want good weapons able to even the odds more. Us being pro-gun is in support of your freedoms as well as ours. Sorry that it's our line in the sand because once they get the guns governments can do as they wish.
Owning firearms isn't going to protect you from a military. Not in these days. "Sir, he's got an AR15, permission to fire mortars?"

I don't know what kind of delusional fantasy you people seem to have about what a hostile military takeover of a country would look like, but your guns won't mean crap. Citizens would be issued an ultimatum, evacuate the area or die. If you don't leave, you get bombed. If you do leave, they can see any weapons you might have, and then you also get bombed, or simply surrounded.

Military operations aren't lead by idiots. If this fantasy were to somehow become real, there would be no resistance, merely wishful thinking.
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right.
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Quote:
Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

Quote:
When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.
No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
You're right BUT.

This is the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now add in the second amendment. They placed it there for a reason. It is there for the people not the state to be able to take out a tyrannical government. We have to keep everything in context. What's your line in the sand? When would you support an armed revolution or would you always trust in the government no matter how poorly they treat you. Now when your line in the sand get's crossed would you be wanting your firearms? What if China invades? Will you welcome them with open arms or will you wish to have a firearm that can match their firepower and give you an edge. This is a personal choice and you may be willing to handle a more tyrannical government hell you might promote a communist state like China and agree with forced abortions of females and a one child policy. But if you don't, are you willing to fight against it? And if you're ever willing to fight, we both know you'll want good weapons able to even the odds more. Us being pro-gun is in support of your freedoms as well as ours. Sorry that it's our line in the sand because once they get the guns governments can do as they wish.
Owning firearms isn't going to protect you from a military. Not in these days. "Sir, he's got an AR15, permission to fire mortars?"

I don't know what kind of delusional fantasy you people seem to have about what a hostile military takeover of a country would look like, but your guns won't mean crap. Citizens would be issued an ultimatum, evacuate the area or die. If you don't leave, you get bombed. If you do leave, they can see any weapons you might have, and then you also get bombed, or simply surrounded.

Military operations aren't lead by idiots. If this fantasy were to somehow become real, there would be no resistance, merely wishful thinking.
So you'd rather be controlled then stand for your principles.(You're telling me you will never fight for what you believe in, and would rather give up) Asymmetric warfare Where there is a will there is a way. You shouldn't give up before trying.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right.
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Quote:
Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law
Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

Quote:
When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.
No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
You're right BUT.

This is the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now add in the second amendment. They placed it there for a reason. It is there for the people not the state to be able to take out a tyrannical government. We have to keep everything in context. What's your line in the sand? When would you support an armed revolution or would you always trust in the government no matter how poorly they treat you. Now when your line in the sand get's crossed would you be wanting your firearms? What if China invades? Will you welcome them with open arms or will you wish to have a firearm that can match their firepower and give you an edge. This is a personal choice and you may be willing to handle a more tyrannical government hell you might promote a communist state like China and agree with forced abortions of females and a one child policy. But if you don't, are you willing to fight against it? And if you're ever willing to fight, we both know you'll want good weapons able to even the odds more. Us being pro-gun is in support of your freedoms as well as ours. Sorry that it's our line in the sand because once they get the guns governments can do as they wish.
Owning firearms isn't going to protect you from a military. Not in these days. "Sir, he's got an AR15, permission to fire mortars?"

I don't know what kind of delusional fantasy you people seem to have about what a hostile military takeover of a country would look like, but your guns won't mean crap. Citizens would be issued an ultimatum, evacuate the area or die. If you don't leave, you get bombed. If you do leave, they can see any weapons you might have, and then you also get bombed, or simply surrounded.

Military operations aren't lead by idiots. If this fantasy were to somehow become real, there would be no resistance, merely wishful thinking.
So you'd rather be controlled then stand for your principles.(You're telling me you will never fight for what you believe in, and would rather give up) Asymmetric warfare Where there is a will there is a way. You shouldn't give up before trying.
I like living. And you don't know what my principles are. I already live in a world who's principles I disagree with. Think I should start killing people?
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
You're right BUT.

This is the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now add in the second amendment. They placed it there for a reason. It is there for the people not the state to be able to take out a tyrannical government. We have to keep everything in context. What's your line in the sand? When would you support an armed revolution or would you always trust in the government no matter how poorly they treat you. Now when your line in the sand get's crossed would you be wanting your firearms? What if China invades? Will you welcome them with open arms or will you wish to have a firearm that can match their firepower and give you an edge. This is a personal choice and you may be willing to handle a more tyrannical government hell you might promote a communist state like China and agree with forced abortions of females and a one child policy. But if you don't, are you willing to fight against it? And if you're ever willing to fight, we both know you'll want good weapons able to even the odds more. Us being pro-gun is in support of your freedoms as well as ours. Sorry that it's our line in the sand because once they get the guns governments can do as they wish.
Owning firearms isn't going to protect you from a military. Not in these days. "Sir, he's got an AR15, permission to fire mortars?"

I don't know what kind of delusional fantasy you people seem to have about what a hostile military takeover of a country would look like, but your guns won't mean crap. Citizens would be issued an ultimatum, evacuate the area or die. If you don't leave, you get bombed. If you do leave, they can see any weapons you might have, and then you also get bombed, or simply surrounded.

Military operations aren't lead by idiots. If this fantasy were to somehow become real, there would be no resistance, merely wishful thinking.
So you'd rather be controlled then stand for your principles.(You're telling me you will never fight for what you believe in, and would rather give up) Asymmetric warfare Where there is a will there is a way. You shouldn't give up before trying.
I like living. And you don't know what my principles are. I already live in a world who's principles I disagree with. Think I should start killing people?
What's your line in the sand then. When are YOU willing to fight with violence in self-defense. Will you be walked into a camp for let's say being atheist? Or will you grab a damn ar-15 and shoot those attempting to take you away. Or will you walk quietly to your death. There are lines in the sand. Notice how us pro-gunners have yet to start a revolt. Tomorrow might be different though. I pray we stay strong but there are going to be rallies at state capitals. And if shots are fired that might be a tipping point. We generally believe in self-defense. Let's hope there aren't any people willing to provoke violence on the 8th. (Which is actually today.) I want to avoid violence as much as possible. But there is a line in the sand for many right now. Now what is your line in the sand when you're going to wish you had a gun. Do you even support gun control? Or are you just playing devils advocate for sport and debate.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Should civilians have access to surface-to-air missiles? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were all for each citizen having access to nuclear warheads.

Pray tell, will you quote me the line in the constitution which denotes the 2nd amendment as inalienable?

No, infringement of your rights is taking your rights away. You have the freedom to own a firearm. You can't own any firearm you want, and you have to go through a hoop or two to get one, but by all means, you still have the right to own them.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment didn't say anything about having the right to transferring ownership of your guns to kin, or even to own them under any and all circumstances. In fact, I can't even seem to find the part that tells you you're allowed to carry it around anywhere. I'm reading that you have the right to own and use them, and that circumstances are left unmentioned. Big, sweeping words like "all" were never used.

Technically speaking, it's constitutionally sound to make it so the only legal firearm for a civilian is a musket. You can still own firearms.

Try reading what's there, not what's not.
You're right BUT.

This is the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now add in the second amendment. They placed it there for a reason. It is there for the people not the state to be able to take out a tyrannical government. We have to keep everything in context. What's your line in the sand? When would you support an armed revolution or would you always trust in the government no matter how poorly they treat you. Now when your line in the sand get's crossed would you be wanting your firearms? What if China invades? Will you welcome them with open arms or will you wish to have a firearm that can match their firepower and give you an edge. This is a personal choice and you may be willing to handle a more tyrannical government hell you might promote a communist state like China and agree with forced abortions of females and a one child policy. But if you don't, are you willing to fight against it? And if you're ever willing to fight, we both know you'll want good weapons able to even the odds more. Us being pro-gun is in support of your freedoms as well as ours. Sorry that it's our line in the sand because once they get the guns governments can do as they wish.
Owning firearms isn't going to protect you from a military. Not in these days. "Sir, he's got an AR15, permission to fire mortars?"

I don't know what kind of delusional fantasy you people seem to have about what a hostile military takeover of a country would look like, but your guns won't mean crap. Citizens would be issued an ultimatum, evacuate the area or die. If you don't leave, you get bombed. If you do leave, they can see any weapons you might have, and then you also get bombed, or simply surrounded.

Military operations aren't lead by idiots. If this fantasy were to somehow become real, there would be no resistance, merely wishful thinking.
So you'd rather be controlled then stand for your principles.(You're telling me you will never fight for what you believe in, and would rather give up) Asymmetric warfare Where there is a will there is a way. You shouldn't give up before trying.
I like living. And you don't know what my principles are. I already live in a world who's principles I disagree with. Think I should start killing people?
What's your line in the sand then. When are YOU willing to fight with violence in self-defense. Will you be walked into a camp for let's say being atheist? Or will you grab a damn ar-15 and shoot those attempting to take you away. Or will you walk quietly to your death. There are lines in the sand. Notice how us pro-gunners have yet to start a revolt. Tomorrow might be different though. I pray we stay strong but there are going to be rallies at state capitals. And if shots are fired that might be a tipping point. We generally believe in self-defense. Let's hope there aren't any people willing to provoke violence on the 8th. (Which is actually today.) I want to avoid violence as much as possible. But there is a line in the sand for many right now. Now what is your line in the sand when you're going to wish you had a gun. Do you even support gun control? Or are you just playing devils advocate for sport and debate.


I'll admit this is getting a tad mellow dramatic. xp
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Suicidesoldier#1
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
YahuShalum
False Dichotomy
Owning firearms isn't going to protect you from a military. Not in these days. "Sir, he's got an AR15, permission to fire mortars?"

I don't know what kind of delusional fantasy you people seem to have about what a hostile military takeover of a country would look like, but your guns won't mean crap. Citizens would be issued an ultimatum, evacuate the area or die. If you don't leave, you get bombed. If you do leave, they can see any weapons you might have, and then you also get bombed, or simply surrounded.

Military operations aren't lead by idiots. If this fantasy were to somehow become real, there would be no resistance, merely wishful thinking.
So you'd rather be controlled then stand for your principles.(You're telling me you will never fight for what you believe in, and would rather give up) Asymmetric warfare Where there is a will there is a way. You shouldn't give up before trying.
I like living. And you don't know what my principles are. I already live in a world who's principles I disagree with. Think I should start killing people?
What's your line in the sand then. When are YOU willing to fight with violence in self-defense. Will you be walked into a camp for let's say being atheist? Or will you grab a damn ar-15 and shoot those attempting to take you away. Or will you walk quietly to your death. There are lines in the sand. Notice how us pro-gunners have yet to start a revolt. Tomorrow might be different though. I pray we stay strong but there are going to be rallies at state capitals. And if shots are fired that might be a tipping point. We generally believe in self-defense. Let's hope there aren't any people willing to provoke violence on the 8th. (Which is actually today.) I want to avoid violence as much as possible. But there is a line in the sand for many right now. Now what is your line in the sand when you're going to wish you had a gun. Do you even support gun control? Or are you just playing devils advocate for sport and debate.


I'll admit this is getting a tad mellow dramatic. xp
It's spelled melodramatic.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games