Do You Disagree With Not Being Able To Buy/Own A Tank?

[Darkwind]

How about nuclear weapons?

Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?

Why/why not?

In fact, I do disagree with it.

 

[emptystep]

Ok, then yes.

My strict interpretation of the Constitution is that US citizens have given themselves the right to be armed, with ANY arms, they choose to use.

US Citizens can also repeal or alter this right, i.e., they can amend the Constituion.

However, niether the Executive can enforce rules that are unconstitutional, nor can the Legislature pass laws in conflict with the constitution. Ironically, the potential for any branch of government acting Ex-consitutionally is precisely the reason US Citizens have given themselves the right to be armed.

Do citizens have the right to carry their firearms wherever they go?

No, this is not a constitutional right.

So you can keep but you can't bear?

 

[Samson]

Do citizens have the right to carry their firearms wherever they go?

No, this is not a constitutional right.

So you can keep but you can't bear?

The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.

 

[emptystep]

No, this is not a constitutional right.

So you can keep but you can't bear?

The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.

What does 'bear' mean?

 

[Darkwind]

No, this is not a constitutional right.

So you can keep but you can't bear?

The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.

It also doesn't say that they cannot.

 

[Pogo]

I will try to take a photo of my neighbour's tank ...I don't promise when ...I will try! Some of these days.

Well if it's camouflaged we won't see it there, will we?

Show your neighbour this --
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF4EjrrtBOw]The Ballad of Jake and Ten-Ton Molly - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Samson]

So you can keep but you can't bear?

The US Constitution does not say US Citizens can carry their firearms wherever they go.

What does 'bear' mean?

Whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

 

[hortysir]

How about nuclear weapons?

Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?

Why/why not?

I'll bite.

Yes.

My government, or police force, shouldn't be more well-armed than I.

When the black SUVs pull up in my yard, I'd like to have a fighting chance


And I really don't give a shit if anyone thinks I'm too extreme.

 

[skye]

I will try to take a photo of my neighbour's tank ...I don't promise when ...I will try! Some of these days.

Well if it's camouflaged we won't see it there, will we?

Show your neighbour this --
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF4EjrrtBOw]The Ballad of Jake and Ten-Ton Molly - YouTube[/ame]

Thing is... it's painted camouflage but we can see it parked there.

Like a badge of honor!!!! I like that tank!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Logic requires rules, you are giving us your rules

No, I apply the "rules" of logic, period. There is no "my rules" vs "your rules." There is simply THE rules of logic. You are not entitled to your own mode of logic.

I and others disagree

If you choose to ignore logical principles in forming your argument, then that is your decision. But such a choice does not make your position magically valid.

thus maybe our rules are the logical rules or maybe they are something else like pragmatism or reality.

The rules of logic are already thoroughly established. If your position requires a violation of logic, then your position is invalid. The rules of logic do not change just because you choose to "disagree" so as to preserve an otherwise untenable position.

I think you miss the fact your logic is full of assumptions and only logical to you and the bubble you exist in.

Actually, it's not. Of course, if you actually knew anything about the study of logic you wouldn't make such an asinine claim. The very nature of logic is that its rules are universal. The underlying goal of the study of logic is to ascertain those modes of reasoning that are rational and compelling for use, based on the ability of those respective forms of argument to produce reliable conclusions.

The very definition of fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning, due to the fact that the resulting conclusions are not reliable. I produced a very clear example of why accident is an error of reasoning. If you can't understand that, then you need to take a class before you bother going on any further about other people's alleged lack of logic.

 

[PaulS1950]

Do I disagree with not being able to buy/own a tank?
It isn't a valid question. Private citizens can buy and own tanks and some do!
I think it is reasonable to assume that buying and owning military surplus vehicles is a common policy. How do you think off roading became so popular? People bought military surplus Jeeps! If an ex-Terminator can buy a military Hummer (not surplus) what makes you thing you can't own a tank?

 

[Doc91678]

What makes you think I don't own a tank?

Funny, I know where there's a tank available within 7 miles of here. It an M-60 and it runs.

How many miles does it have and what's the MPG?

Last I looked it's cherry, 15,000 miles and just a tad bit of a gas hog. I think it gets a half mile to the gallon. The cannon is 90mm and there's a mount for the Ma Deuce.

 

[HUGGY]

Stupidest straw man argument on the subject to date...And that's some hurdle to clear.

Nobody can "bear" a tank.

/thread

Sure they can. I have a friend up here in the wilderness AKA Seattle that has a Sherman and an Armored Personell Carrier with a 50 cal turrit.

 

[Contumacious]

How about nuclear weapons?

Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?

Why/why not?

Firstly, our colonists owned canons.

But something is fucked when you do not object to the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US Government having control of weapons of mass destruction.

.

 

[oreo]

How about nuclear weapons?

Is the reasoning sound not to have those available and/or otherwise accessible to citizens?

Why/why not?

Very good point--I believe most Americans would not agree to the sale of a tank to individual American citizens--much less a nuclear weapon.

I am a conservative and believe in the 2nd amendment for personal protection--but I agree with you that military assault type weapons should not be sold to the public. But right now it's kind of like closing the barn door after the cows got out. It's clear after Sandy Hook--that we have a lot of irresponsible gun owners that do not keep their weapons and ammunition locked up--(as the military is required to do)--therefore giving free access to anyone who wants to use it.

In my opinion instead of banning assault weapons--I would require a multi-million dollar insurance liability policy on them with a certificate of insurance to be provided to the licensed gun dealer prior to the sell. The insurance company--(through prudent business measures) would have to do a birth to current mental health--criminal--and ass examination before they would ever issue a policy on this weapon--making assault weapons much more expensive and thereby taking a lot of the macho-miso interest out of these weapons.

I would also MANDATE--that no gun can be sold from individual to individual or given to another and that all trades and sales have to go through a licensed gun dealer. And that all registered owners of weapons sign a sworn statement that they will be the only one using the gun--and when the gun is not in their personal possession that it along with the ammunition is locked in a gun safe--where no one else has access to it. If the gun is stolen or lost that the registered owner is personally liable for any harm it does to innocents.

That should cure the problem. The military is required to lock up their weapons and ammo when it is not in their personal possession--so should the public be required to do the same.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whaaaaa...?

Nothing up there has anything to do with the past before 1788. It's all about development after. Anything developed up to that time would fall under the contemporary definition of "arms".

Strange post.

Are you trying to tell me that, if you brought a soldier from that time to today, didn't tell him anything, and pointed a bazooka at him, he wouldn't understand the threat?

No. Nothing remotely close to anything even vaguely like that.

Then, despite your feeble attempt to apply your own twisted logic to something that is completely illogical, you don't actually have a point. Good to know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So circumstances matter, you lost your own argument.

Uh....no, I didn't. Apparently you lost your argument because you just demonstrated your ignorance of logic.

Logic requires rules, you are giving us your rules, I and others disagree, thus maybe our rules are the logical rules or maybe they are something else like pragmatism or reality. I think you miss the fact your logic is full of assumptions and only logical to you and the bubble you exist in. Circumstance matter, you said so, now think.

Logic does not require rules, logic is rules.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you're using a horse/donkey/cart to move something, it's the animal/animal/vehicle that's doing the "bearing". That's why we call them beasts of burden.

No the horse is doing the toting, bearing has nothing to do with carrying.

The hell it doesn't. I refer you to the most recent definition entry:

1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" (Abraham Cowley).
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: "

Source: Bear - definition of Bear by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I've never ever heard the word "tote" used for an animal.
Definition of TOTE
1: to carry by hand : bear on the person : lug, pack
2: haul, convey
— tot·er noun
Origin of TOTE
probably from an English-based creole; akin to Gullah & Krio tot to carry, of Bantu origin; akin to Kikongo -tota to pick up, Kimbundu -tuta to carry
First Known Use: 1677 (Merriam-Webster)[/QUOTE]

In the context of the 2nd Amendment the phrase "keep and bear arms" does not mean own and carry, which is why it allowed horse drawn cannons, which are impossible to carry. Come to think of it, it is still perfectly legal to own horse drawn cannons.

 

[Bigfoot]

I know where a T-55 is for sale right now. A friend of mine who owns heavy equipment is thinking about purchasing it. Right now we are looking into what kind's of fluids it requires.

 

[HUGGY]

Stupidest straw man argument on the subject to date...And that's some hurdle to clear.

Nobody can "bear" a tank.

/thread

Sure they can. I have a friend up here in the wilderness AKA Seattle that has a Sherman and an Armored Personell Carrier with a 50 cal turrit.

Here is my friends APC..



Classic and Military