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.