Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/25/2001 3:56:06 PM EST
Earlier this week, I got in to a discussion with some guys at work. One was a SFC and one was a MSG. Somehow the conversation turned to guns (as a lot of my conversations do). Well, the SFC was saying that he believes the 2nd Amendment GIVES people the right to own guns, but that registration is not an infringement on that right. Well, needless to say I took issue with that. His arguments basically took the safety issue line. He said that if a cop needs to respond to a house for something like a domestic violence or burglary issue, that the cop should be able to access a database that would let him know what guns are in the house. He also tried to use the "cars are registered, guns should be too" analogy. He said he believed in mandatory gun locks/safe storage. He said he didn't think citizens should be allowed to own assault weapons (while watching my homemade screensaver with all the GIFs I copied from the Armalite catalog). He also asked if one of my kids got hold of my guns and was killed or killed someone, would it change my views. Well, I gave the guy a run for his money. I used a lot of the typical arguments. I refused to get into the "guns are like cars" argument until he could show me in the Constitution where our right to own a car was specifically protected. As a matter of fact, one of the civilians I work with was sitting at his desk listening to the whole thing. He got up to do something, and as he walked by, he said to the other two guys "You guys are getting a lesson". I know the guy is pro-gun and pro-second, but not vocal about it. But still his comment pumped me up even more. I know I didn't change anyone's mind, but it was good practice. Soooooooooooo.......... Here's where the part about us having a little fun comes in. Let me do a little bit of open trolling and play devil's advocate here. We can all use this thread to sharpen our debating skills, and maybe bring up arguments we haven't thought of yet. If anyone wants to jump in and play anti for a bit, feel free. So, debate me on the following issue: "The Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns, but they shouldn't be allowed to own high capacity assault weapons, because they don't serve a sporting purpose. And all guns should be registered, for safety's sake." Now keep it clean, and don't let anyone get their feelings hurt. It's just for fun.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:08:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:08:46 PM EST
The arms spoken of in the 2nd Amendment are military arms. So called AWs are military arms, therefore we have a right to own them. The 2nd isn't about hunting or even self defense, it is about the defense of liberty. radioman
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:13:21 PM EST
Garand Shooter, If you are willing to kill people over something as innocuos as registration, the maybe you shouldn't own a gun in the first place. radioman, I'm sure the people who wrote the constitution never imagined the massive killing machines we have now, and they certainly wouldn't have given us the right to own things like that.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:18:09 PM EST
O.K. I'm morphing.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:18:24 PM EST
Let's see...register your car and you can take it anywhere you want. Out to dinner, to the bank, to a friends house and let's see...if you just want to use your car on your own land you don't need to register it and let's see...I can buy any kind of car I want, sooooo I can buy any kind of gun I want so I think once I register, I'll buy a couple of 155MM Howitzers, couple of mortars, a Gatling cannon.....chees! maybe registration ain't so bad!! Actually its awful but I was just trying to think this car thing through. I'll shoot anyone who tries to take my guns. Period!!! I am fed up with bureaucrats! (Definition:bureaucrat:somone corrupt who works for our corrupt government for the purpose of taking away honest peoples money and rights.)
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:21:39 PM EST
The Second Amendment does not grant any right to anyone; it LIMITS the power of the federal government. The opening clause of the 2A (A well-regulated Militia...) is an explanation, not a qualifier. It states the justification for this limit on federal power. Whether or not the need for the states to have a strong and effective militia now is irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms still exists and cannot be infringed legally without first repealing or modifying the Second Amendment. Under our legal system anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. The proposition under debate presupposes that people only have a right to own firearms for sporting purposes. That is ludicrous. People have a right to do or own anything they want unless it is specifically proscribed by due process of law. Registration of firearms would put burdens of expense and inconvenience on gun owners. It would be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and would therefore be unconstitutional. If someone can prove that registration would result in a safer society, there would be a case for discussing it. But no such case has been presented. So there, you dildoes.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:26:59 PM EST
O.K. I'm morphed. Don't hold any of this against me in the future. You guys can't be serious. Garand Shooter; When the government comes pulling up your drive way in their M60 tank retriever with cs gas dispersion system and your punny little .223 rounds are not even scratching the paint are you going to let yourself and your family die like they did at Waco? radio man You're militia is no longer needed. We have the most sofisticated army in the world. See above.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:28:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:29:52 PM EST
The second has nothing to do with sporting arm, and everything to do with military arms, one of its main purpose is to defend against a tyrannical government and you don't do that well with sporting arms!
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:29:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:32:08 PM EST
LTVN68 and Cali Kid, Governments change all the time. Ours is changing. Do you realy think you're right. What if your neighber was one of the Hes Ba la's (sp?) sleeping minions. Would it be O.K. for him to own a thermo neuclear device?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:33:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:35:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:36:09 PM EST
Excellent, LTVN68! So you will register your gun like a car. Of course, like a car, your gun must meet certain government safety standards. If it doesn't, it won't be manufactured and you won't be able to get it. And of course, anything currently used by the military will not be allowed to be sold to civilians. Ever try to buy an F-16? Cali Kid, Yes the opening clause of the Second is an explanation. It explains that the militia (the armed forces) can have all the guns they need. And yes, anything not expressly forbidden is allowed. That's why we have passed laws to restrict ownership of certain types of firearms. The expense and inconvenience of registration is outweighed by the benefits of public safety. In England and Australia, confiscation has resulted in reduced rates of gun death. (At this point, let me apologize for any spelling errors that may occur. I'm not the best typist, and I'm trying to keep up.)
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:37:30 PM EST
All this focus on the individual rights is impeding the progression of mankind. Man has specialized as we become more civilized. I would bet that most peole here could not butcher a deer if they could kill one. we can't keep thinking about the individual. There are to many pressing issues that confront mankinds suvival on this planet. We have to control ourselfs in all aspects.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:37:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:38:33 PM EST
Hey, Halcocked! I've seen tyranny and I choose to resist. Appeasement of tyrants does not stop tyranny, it encourages it. May I suggest Patrick Henry's approach for consideration..."but as for me, Give me Liberty or (paraphrase) I'll kick your ass!!!" My freedom comes from God. Only He has permission to take it away.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:39:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:40:59 PM EST
All those guys are dead. I would hope that you people would realize that man is becoming more intelligent as time goes on. A true intellect would realize this.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:41:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 4:44:23 PM EST by California_Kid]
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: LTVN68 and Cali Kid, Governments change all the time. Ours is changing. Do you realy think you're right. What if your neighber was one of the Hes Ba la's (sp?) sleeping minions. Would it be O.K. for him to own a thermo neuclear device?
View Quote
Hezbolla's (sp???) "sleeping minions" are people, too. They have the same rights as I do. My neighbors may disagree with me on many subjects. They may even hate me. I don't care. I still respect their right to keep and bear arms. If one of them can afford a thermonuclear device that's fine with me. They don't have a right to use it against me. If they have any sense of morality and decency, they won't attack me with it or any other weapon. Getting killed with a thermonuclear device has the same end result for me as getting killed with a gun, a car, or a cricket bat. If they want to kill me they will. As for my "emenies" having arms, I agree with Rabbi Mermelstein: [url]http://www.jpfo.org/rabbi9.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:41:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:43:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:46:24 PM EST
California Kid...I think I like you! Well said, my friend! "If I wish freedom for myself, then I must wish it for all men"
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:49:01 PM EST
and Paul. Your comments reflect a heritage of deep and abiding quality...in the sense of Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I mean that!
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:54:58 PM EST
Paul, I wish you wouldn't hold back so, it impedes the flow of ideas and information. [img]http://members.aol.com/govtthug/images/govtthug.gif[/img] You can post all of the quotes of our forefathers that you want, but if they were important to the issue, they would have put it in the second amendment. Where did you get all these quotes, from old newspapers or something? Old newspapers are not the Constitution. Also, if guns are registerd or outlawed, eventually criminals won't be able to get them either. Things will be safer for everyone. And why do you think that you need guns to protect yourself agianst the government? Do you really think the government wants to do you harm? Even if they did, the great thing about our country is that we can vote for the people who have our best interests at heart. If we don't like our leaders, we can vote for new ones. Get it?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 4:58:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By GovtThug: ...Also, if guns are registerd or outlawed, eventually criminals won't be able to get them either. Things will be safer for everyone....
View Quote
"Eventually" is too far in the future. It doesn't do me or my loved ones any good. The Genie is out of the bottle. It's too late to uninvent guns or nerve gas. Those things are here to stay. In a world with no guns the strong would dominate the weak. Not just could, they WOULD. Guns are equalizers. I must go drink sake and eat sushi. Have a good Memorial Day weekend, all!
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:07:01 PM EST
California Kid, Watch out for the sake if you've never had it. It'll sneak up on you. But have fun running away from the debate. Most of you gun nuts do when confronted by logic and common sense. Your so-called "patriots" threw off the British because they knew "eventually" a free and SAFE country would emerge. Freedom and safety can't be guaranteed now, but it will be possible for our children.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:18:48 PM EST
Hey, I'm with Cali Kid, only it's Margaritas and Tomales (ain't America great). The wife wants to play cards. Someone else do that devils advocate thing. I got a stomach ache doing it.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:25:15 PM EST
I just LOVE the "Gun Nut" moniker.[;D] Sheeesh........
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:27:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 5:26:08 PM EST by A_FLY]
GovtThug: [-!-!-] (tounge in cheek of course)
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:28:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 5:27:35 PM EST by Halfcocked]
Freedom and safety...isn't that an oximoron?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:32:29 PM EST
So what is wrong with registration? If you are law-abiding, why would you care if your guns are registered? It would help law enforcement know where the guns are that may be a problem, and it would make sure that criminals don't get guns. It would also help capture the illegal gun buyers. If everyone had to get a "Gun Owners ID Card", then criminals wouldn't be able to get guns. What's wrong with that?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:35:34 PM EST
A_FLY, Typical of your ilk. When you can't refute logic, respond with insults.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:37:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:37:28 PM EST
Criminals are Criminals. They are not going to register their weapons to begin with. Even if you successfully removed all guns from the face of the earth, people will go back to clubs. I learned my lesson too, I will definately stock up on clubs with evil features before that ban takes effect.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:38:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:38:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:39:33 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:41:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:41:17 PM EST
The Second Amendment gives people the right to own guns, but they shouldn't be allowed to own high capacity assault weapons, because they don't serve a sporting purpose. And all guns should be registered, for safety's sake.
View Quote
The Second Amendment doesn't [i]give[/i] anyone anything. It is simply an affirmation of our [i]natural right[/i] as human beings to have the means to protect ourselves from foreign and domestic enemies, including our own government. The Second Amendment places limitations on the government; not on the people. There is nothing in the Constitution related to sport. The Constitution is concerned with the militia, which is everyone of us. To be viable, the militia must have modern weaponry. Therefore, assualt weapon bans and the like are clearly unconstitutional, as they infringe on the ability of the militia to be an effective fighting force. If anything, there may be a case to ban sporting weapons as they are not considered state-of-the-art weapons and are not commonly use by the militia. However, again, the banning of modern military weapons hinders the militia and is therefore unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:44:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 5:45:26 PM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 5:56:18 PM EST
GovtThug, Fuck You.[:I] Actually I applaud your performance as the [}:)] advocate. We all must resist the urge to lash out insults against the anti's. They like to use it as AMMO to prove that we are indeed "Gun Nuts"(a label we have given ourselves.and I HATE IT) Let the Show Continue...
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 6:13:31 PM EST
Burrrrrrp! I love Margaritas and tomales. Paul, It's in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. The last time that happened was WWII. The Constitution is no longer a valid document because so many parts are already ignored. Why bother sticking with a couple of amendments (that have been pretty much ignored along with everything else).
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 6:18:42 PM EST
Well , Paul, I'm going to break my anti character here and try to answer your last question. Liberal politicians are bent on destroying our costitutional guarantees because they are a reflection of their liberal constituents. Their liberal constituents typically live in or near cities, as a reflection of their values and beliefs. Liberals are dependent on others, more so than the average citizen of 200, or even 100 years ago. It used to be that a man would do for himself. If he needed, he would make it, or build it, or call on his valued neighbor to help him by teaching him to build it or make it. Nowadays, man works at doing something unrelated to his everyday life in order to provide himself a living. That is why man has lost the sense of territory and ownership that he once had. Man now no longer provides for himself. He provides for others in order to make a living for himself. He purchases for his needs for himself, rather than makes for himself. That is why we have seen the shift from rural residence to urban residence. Because, increasingly, people need other people to make their lives complete. Gone is the time when a man could make his way mostly by his own devices. So, now that men have become dependent upon others for their livelihood, we have put too many people into too small a piece of land that is able to sustain them. So what we have is a burgeoning poulation that is growing up on ground that is incapable of sustaining them. So, naturally, they must find some means of support and order that they can not provide for themselves. The government is optimally configured to provide both support and order, So now men put their faith and support in the government, where they used to put their faith in the Lord and support themselves. There are men who have put their faith and support in the government. Thereby, they have surrendered their freedom and safety to the government. We call them liberals now, but 200, or even 100 years ago, we would have called them something else. But times have changed, and unfortunately, so have the people. Have I won the $64,00? Youn can keep it if you can answer this question correctly: Is the glass half empty or half full?
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 6:46:53 PM EST
Bravo Each point and counter point contained excellant points that are expounded by both sides of the debate. Several small points that I observed during the debate center around these points. 1. The weapons at Lexington and Concorde were not large artillery pieces, but the weapons of the everyday man. It should be remembered that after all of the bombing, and all of the posturing, the only way that a people can be defeated, is by going in on the ground and taking the objective. When there is no ability to fight back, then the enemy has won, the people will be herded like sheep. 2. A statement was made about England and Australia's gun death's (i believe that what was quoted) going down. Check the stats, and you will find that crime, and violence have risen to heights unknown in those areas prior to their gun bans. Just one man's opinion and that is that all of the millions of words thrown back and forth come down to just a few: When the gun are gone those with power will control and rule with an iron fist. The state will dictate who will live and who will die, man will be deprived of their agency to decide for themselves what course their lives will take. The essence of the fight is between the control of your own destiny or becoming subjects of the state, and not citizens. Many times we look to the Constitution, but fail to remember the words of the Declaration of Independance We the people---------not we the state.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 7:02:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2001 7:04:46 PM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 7:50:56 PM EST
Paul, while what you have posted here is not current, it is certainly timeless. Unfortunately, this country is too well populated with those concerned with the current, and not so much the timeless. I must, however, take issue with your categorization of some people as "sheep". Sheep have no control over their own expoitive situation. They may or may not have the capacity for rational thought, but they certainly do not have the capacity for decisive action to improve their situation. But all men have the capacity for rational thought, but not the capacity for decisive action. That is the society we live in. You strike me as a realist, rather than an idealist. I find that refreshing in a place and time where ideals rule the day, and when the realism of our situation is lost on most. Ideals are the best solution, until you get real people involved. Then realism is the best course of action. But I'm sure you know that. So, you still have not answered my Most Important Question: Is the glass half empty, or half full? If you want me to give you the answer, I will, but then you must admit that GovtThug actually taught somebody something. But I freely admit that you have taught me some things, that I will use the next time someone questions the liberties our forefathers tried to protect.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:03:42 PM EST
Well, you can blame the "uncertainty" over what the Second means on lawyers. Instead of just saying, as they should have, "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed (and that means YOU motherfucker!)", they had to give it a preamble..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary To the Security of a Free State...." (btw, where's that?)
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:16:05 PM EST
Well, I'm going to bed, so I'll give the answer to my question. "Is the glass half empty or half full?" An optimist says "It's half full." A pessimist says "It's half empty." A realist says, "It depends on whether I'm pouring or drinking." Lately, the glass is getting emptier. And we're the ones who have to drink from it. Let's not die of thirst.
Link Posted: 5/26/2001 4:18:09 AM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top