The Right to Bear Arms that Aren't Guns

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Tadpole Jackson

God Emperor Akhenaton

CumFilledCinnabon

God Emperor Akhenaton

CumFilledCinnabon

God Emperor Akhenaton

Well concealable blades are certainly more dangerous than some guns in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure even an oldy times derringer shot to the head is more lethal than any knife wound you can commit with a switchblade..

You'll die just as quickly with a knife to the head. Not to mention that it's silent.

A knife to the head...where exactly? Light knives can't pierce the skull.

And they may be silent, but they're also ridiculously messy. You're going to look like a shoplifter who broke the anti-theft tags.

First off, yes it can. Secondly the temple, top of the head and the back are significantly weaker than the forehead, but that too can be pierced. Thirdly, a gun will make a hell of a lot more noise than a knife will and a bigger mess regardless. A gun will alert guards and give you unwanted attention.

you press a snub nose .357 into someone's ribcage and pull the trigger and it'll make astonishingly little noise, the human body makes a great suppressor.

edit: if you press a .22 up against someone's noodle and click the bang switch and you'll get a similar effect, with no exit wound. just a dead body with a tiny hole in the side of the head.

Of you think a .22 won't leave the skull, then you are mistaken. And a .357 would still make more noise

[Pipebracket]

God Emperor Akhenaton

Tadpole Jackson

God Emperor Akhenaton

CumFilledCinnabon

God Emperor Akhenaton

You'll die just as quickly with a knife to the head. Not to mention that it's silent.

A knife to the head...where exactly? Light knives can't pierce the skull.

And they may be silent, but they're also ridiculously messy. You're going to look like a shoplifter who broke the anti-theft tags.

First off, yes it can. Secondly the temple, top of the head and the back are significantly weaker than the forehead, but that too can be pierced. Thirdly, a gun will make a hell of a lot more noise than a knife will and a bigger mess regardless. A gun will alert guards and give you unwanted attention.

you press a snub nose .357 into someone's ribcage and pull the trigger and it'll make astonishingly little noise, the human body makes a great suppressor.

edit: if you press a .22 up against someone's noodle and click the bang switch and you'll get a similar effect, with no exit wound. just a dead body with a tiny hole in the side of the head.

Of you think a .22 won't leave the skull, then you are mistaken. And a .357 would still make more noise

I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine

His name is .22 short.

out of a 3 inch pistol barrel? bet your a** it's staying inside his noodle.

you don't know how suppressors work do you? short version, it's an expansion chamber to absorb the shockwave of the powder firing.

you press the muzzle securely against skin, and the only sound you're going to hear is the hammer falling and any gas the leaks out from the cylinder gap.


you might hear it, but it won't sound much like you'd expect a gunshot to sound.

[black_wing_angel]

Theoretical Physicist

CumFilledCinnabon

Theoretical Physicist

CumFilledCinnabon

Theoretical Physicist

Yeah.

They classify as weapons, which requires a weapons license.

There's no weapons licenses in new jersey

And even if they were, they'd still be unconstitutional. If a precedent is set that civil rights can be restricted only to those with proper licensing, what's to stop free speech licenses from existing?

Concealed Carry.

As well, you can't abuse free speech while you can abuse weapons. Ergo it's why you need a license for it.


And slander and libel can be prosecuted.

So you don't have perfectly free speech, particularly when you invade another person's privacy or lie etc.

That's not a weapon's license, that's information on attaining a concealed carry license. Yeah, you can own a gun, and you can even hide it on your person if you're a security guard, but guess what, that's not what I'm talking about (I've repeated this about five time, and it's in the topic title, come on).

And actually you can totally abuse your freedom of speech, but does that even matter? There's a lot of places that are using the fact that cursing is generally abusive speech and putting fines and on it because of it's potential for abuse.

Potential for abuse does not legitimize the licensing of liberties.

Which is the same thing.

And so, atom bombs should be available to all citizens?

If they can afford the upwards of $10,000,000 it would probably take to buy one, then I say let them have it.

Quote:

What about criminals, should they be given weapons?

Implying that they can be stopped from obtaining them.

Or that they can be readily identified before the crime is committed.

[Saoszuc]

black_wing_angel

Theoretical Physicist

And so, atom bombs should be available to all citizens?

If they can afford the upwards of $10,000,000 it would probably take to buy one, then I say let them have it.

Yes. I am behind this one thousand percent. People who can spend ten million dollars of their own money are inherently better decision makers. That is why there are no poor people in politics. They are too stupid. cat_3nodding

[black_wing_angel]

Saoszuc

black_wing_angel

Theoretical Physicist

And so, atom bombs should be available to all citizens?

If they can afford the upwards of $10,000,000 it would probably take to buy one, then I say let them have it.

Yes. I am behind this one thousand percent. People who can spend ten million dollars of their own money are inherently better decision makers. That is why there are no poor people in politics. They are too stupid. cat_3nodding

If someone spent 10 million dollars on something, they're probably not going to ever actually use it. At least, if automobiles are anything to judge by.

[Saoszuc]

black_wing_angel

If someone spent 10 million dollars on something, they're probably not going to ever actually use it. At least, if automobiles are anything to judge by.

Do you think I'm disagreeing with you? No, I get it. Useful stuff only costs maybe a few grand, but once the money gets above that you're just spending it to show you have it. The bombs would wind up in a museum or something as a paean to the wealth of the buyer - and hey, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, I agree with Indy: "That belongs in a muesum" and not a secure military facility. cat_3nodding

[agrab0ekim]

Sandokiri

agrab0ekim

Unless you wish to support your argument with case law (and seeing that the 2nd was just added to the state 3 years ago), you're wrong. Start with the slaughterhouse cases, the 14th DOES NOT ON ITS OWN DO s**t

I'll actually argue your point for a moment and say that the problem started well before that: Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) opened the can o' worms, by saying that the BoR doesn't apply to states. So for a considerable time, all those religious test clauses were not unconstitutional, insofar as the Constitution was considered to not comment on them.

XIV should have closed this loophole, and its plain language does; but Slaughterhouse managed to castrate it. Rather than look at bad case law, recognise it as bad, and toss it on its head, this notion of "incorporation" came into being.

But I'll admit you have something right here: any law does nothing (or, as you put it, does not do s**t,) unless it is interpreted in such a way that it can do something (and ideally that which it was written to do,) and unless that thing is done. Even the ones that are in that old parchment called the Constitution.

explain how the right to a grand jury trial has not been incorporated yet
then explain how privilidges and immunities OF THE SEVERAL STATES somehow means the RIGHTS listed in the constitution
then argue against 120 years of case law saying you are outright wrong
finally, read Gidding's words (my favorite Rep. ever), who drafted the damn thing

The 14th does nothing regarding the BoR on its own. Rather, the court has slowly found the concept that it should extend some, but not all, based upon OI of both the 14th AND the orig. amendments (for example, it would be impossible to incorporate the 3rd, for obvious reasons of no longer having state armies)

[Keltoi Samurai]

Saoszuc

black_wing_angel

If someone spent 10 million dollars on something, they're probably not going to ever actually use it. At least, if automobiles are anything to judge by.

Do you think I'm disagreeing with you? No, I get it. Useful stuff only costs maybe a few grand, but once the money gets above that you're just spending it to show you have it. The bombs would wind up in a museum or something as a paean to the wealth of the buyer - and hey, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, I agree with Indy: "That belongs in a muesum" and not a secure military facility. cat_3nodding

maybe it belongs in a secure museum

[Keltoi Samurai]

agrab0ekim

Sandokiri

agrab0ekim

Unless you wish to support your argument with case law (and seeing that the 2nd was just added to the state 3 years ago), you're wrong. Start with the slaughterhouse cases, the 14th DOES NOT ON ITS OWN DO s**t

I'll actually argue your point for a moment and say that the problem started well before that: Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) opened the can o' worms, by saying that the BoR doesn't apply to states. So for a considerable time, all those religious test clauses were not unconstitutional, insofar as the Constitution was considered to not comment on them.

XIV should have closed this loophole, and its plain language does; but Slaughterhouse managed to castrate it. Rather than look at bad case law, recognise it as bad, and toss it on its head, this notion of "incorporation" came into being.

But I'll admit you have something right here: any law does nothing (or, as you put it, does not do s**t,) unless it is interpreted in such a way that it can do something (and ideally that which it was written to do,) and unless that thing is done. Even the ones that are in that old parchment called the Constitution.

explain how the right to a grand jury trial has not been incorporated yet
then explain how privilidges and immunities OF THE SEVERAL STATES somehow means the RIGHTS listed in the constitution
then argue against 120 years of case law saying you are outright wrong
finally, read Gidding's words (my favorite Rep. ever), who drafted the damn thing

The 14th does nothing regarding the BoR on its own. Rather, the court has slowly found the concept that it should extend some, but not all, based upon OI of both the 14th AND the orig. amendments (for example, it would be impossible to incorporate the 3rd, for obvious reasons of no longer having state armies)

the third doesn't reference just state armies, though many states DO in fact have full-on state military, in addition to national guard detachments.

[agrab0ekim]

Keltoi Samurai

agrab0ekim

Sandokiri

agrab0ekim

Unless you wish to support your argument with case law (and seeing that the 2nd was just added to the state 3 years ago), you're wrong. Start with the slaughterhouse cases, the 14th DOES NOT ON ITS OWN DO s**t

I'll actually argue your point for a moment and say that the problem started well before that: Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) opened the can o' worms, by saying that the BoR doesn't apply to states. So for a considerable time, all those religious test clauses were not unconstitutional, insofar as the Constitution was considered to not comment on them.

XIV should have closed this loophole, and its plain language does; but Slaughterhouse managed to castrate it. Rather than look at bad case law, recognise it as bad, and toss it on its head, this notion of "incorporation" came into being.

But I'll admit you have something right here: any law does nothing (or, as you put it, does not do s**t,) unless it is interpreted in such a way that it can do something (and ideally that which it was written to do,) and unless that thing is done. Even the ones that are in that old parchment called the Constitution.

explain how the right to a grand jury trial has not been incorporated yet
then explain how privilidges and immunities OF THE SEVERAL STATES somehow means the RIGHTS listed in the constitution
then argue against 120 years of case law saying you are outright wrong
finally, read Gidding's words (my favorite Rep. ever), who drafted the damn thing

The 14th does nothing regarding the BoR on its own. Rather, the court has slowly found the concept that it should extend some, but not all, based upon OI of both the 14th AND the orig. amendments (for example, it would be impossible to incorporate the 3rd, for obvious reasons of no longer having state armies)

the third doesn't reference just state armies, though many states DO in fact have full-on state military, in addition to national guard detachments.

my point is that it hasn't been applied to the states, which means her argument (the 14th made the entire BoR (including 9 and 10, which is both illogical and impossible) to the states) is wrong
i was using it to counter, not because it itself doesn't apply to the states (which is my point)

that said, what states have a military that isn't the guard? My reading of the militia act bans this, but I would like to be proven wrong (mainly because I hate the militia acts)

*correction, in 1982 the 2nd Circuit incorporated the 3rd amendment - but nobody else has, meaning it likely won't be (I actually didn't know this fact, tossing it into my conlaw portion of brain)

[Keltoi Samurai]

agrab0ekim

Keltoi Samurai

agrab0ekim

Sandokiri

agrab0ekim

Unless you wish to support your argument with case law (and seeing that the 2nd was just added to the state 3 years ago), you're wrong. Start with the slaughterhouse cases, the 14th DOES NOT ON ITS OWN DO s**t

I'll actually argue your point for a moment and say that the problem started well before that: Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) opened the can o' worms, by saying that the BoR doesn't apply to states. So for a considerable time, all those religious test clauses were not unconstitutional, insofar as the Constitution was considered to not comment on them.

XIV should have closed this loophole, and its plain language does; but Slaughterhouse managed to castrate it. Rather than look at bad case law, recognise it as bad, and toss it on its head, this notion of "incorporation" came into being.

But I'll admit you have something right here: any law does nothing (or, as you put it, does not do s**t,) unless it is interpreted in such a way that it can do something (and ideally that which it was written to do,) and unless that thing is done. Even the ones that are in that old parchment called the Constitution.

explain how the right to a grand jury trial has not been incorporated yet
then explain how privilidges and immunities OF THE SEVERAL STATES somehow means the RIGHTS listed in the constitution
then argue against 120 years of case law saying you are outright wrong
finally, read Gidding's words (my favorite Rep. ever), who drafted the damn thing

The 14th does nothing regarding the BoR on its own. Rather, the court has slowly found the concept that it should extend some, but not all, based upon OI of both the 14th AND the orig. amendments (for example, it would be impossible to incorporate the 3rd, for obvious reasons of no longer having state armies)

the third doesn't reference just state armies, though many states DO in fact have full-on state military, in addition to national guard detachments.

my point is that it hasn't been applied to the states, which means her argument (the 14th made the entire BoR (including 9 and 10, which is both illogical and impossible) to the states) is wrong
i was using it to counter, not because it itself doesn't apply to the states (which is my point)

that said, what states have a military that isn't the guard? My reading of the militia act bans this, but I would like to be proven wrong (mainly because I hate the militia acts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

completely separate from the Guard ( which every state has at least two of )

[The20]

Carrying guns is perfectly legal while carrying Katanas isn't? There is only one explanation for this: they watched too much anime.

[Sandokiri]

Quote:

explain how the right to a grand jury trial has not been incorporated yet

then explain how privilidges and immunities OF THE SEVERAL STATES somehow means the RIGHTS listed in the constitution
then argue against 120 years of case law saying you are outright wrong

Please re-read what you just responded to. I'm not disputing that the case law exists. I'm saying that the case law is bad. Cruikshank, for example, was the enabler of the Jim Crow laws, as well as state-based weapon control laws (such as Sullivan) and legitimising religious tests of office at the state level... a precedent which held for ninety years.

As for grand juries, it hadn't been incorporated because once upon a time, all states had provisions from them. The right of an individual accuser to it has, by custom, become filtered to letting prosecuting attorneys handle the cases; I trust you can agree that this is sane, giving how large and litigious we've become. The right of the accused... well, while common law supports grand juries for felonies (it makes convictions harder by requiring twelve affirmations of indictment, and another twelve of guilt,) SCOTUS ruled against it being required in Hurtado on what amounts to states-rights grounds... resulting in about half of the states dropping grand juries from their body of laws.

Quote:

The 14th does nothing regarding the BoR on its own. Rather, the court has slowly found the concept that it should extend some, but not all, based upon OI of both the 14th AND the orig. amendments (for example, it would be impossible to incorporate the 3rd, for obvious reasons of no longer having state armies)

That is only because the case law interpreted it as such; and incorporation is a useless compromise to something that could simply be pondered quickly.

[baerbear]

this topic tittle just made me think of people walking around with mace clubs