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

[Pogo]

For someone with your limited mental capabilities... yeah, you would only comprehend just one aspect of the definition of "to bear".

That was Oddball's point. I done schooled him on further definitions and he hasn't been back. Doesn't matter anyway since the Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", so "keep" is already there.

Notice it doesn't say "use" Arms though. Just 'keep' and 'bear'.
Can I get my SCOTUS seat now?

By definition the term "to bear" also implies "to use".

Ah, "implies" but doesn't "say". Inasmuch as I've heard some make the argument that the right to drive cars or fly planes aren't mentioned in the Constitution and therefore they're "unconstitutional"... well this is why I want that SCOTUS seat.

Plus I hear the workday is like really short, and in special cases you can dress up in Gilbert and Sullivan garb.

I'd look really good in that. It's my colour.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You said a tank.

Game over.

And now I'm saying a rocket launcher.

Game on.

And I am saying I have no problem with them.

 

[Ringel05]

That was Oddball's point. I done schooled him on further definitions and he hasn't been back. Doesn't matter anyway since the Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", so "keep" is already there.

Notice it doesn't say "use" Arms though. Just 'keep' and 'bear'.
Can I get my SCOTUS seat now?

By definition the term "to bear" also implies "to use".

Ah, "implies" but doesn't "say". Inasmuch as I've heard some make the argument that the right to drive cars or fly planes aren't mentioned in the Constitution and therefore they're "unconstitutional"... well this is why I want that SCOTUS seat.

Plus I hear the workday is like really short, and in special cases you can dress up in Gilbert and Sullivan garb.

Okay, not implied..... specifically pursuant to one of the definitions. Interesting twist concerning transportation..... Uuummmmmm........

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Buying a tank is not as difficult as you might think. Whether it is an English collector of military memorabilia, or a Czech with a connection to the Russian Ministry of Defense, someone out there has the tank you want. However, transporting it internationally can be challenging.

Read more: How to Buy a Military Tank | eHow.com How to Buy a Military Tank | eHow.com

Marcie doesn't give a shit...He's just in it for the straw man construction and goalpost moving.

I'd like a link to where I can buy a tank with its weapons systems not disabled, also where I can buy shells for the tank and a town where I can drive my tank to the local Starbucks!

Tanksforsale surplus Military vehicles Tanks_Trucks_Jeeps_for_sale_page

 

[Politico]

It is freaking amazing how clueless you are. If you're going to talk about a subject at least read up on it a little.

 

[Inthemiddle]

How about nuclear weapons?

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

Why/why not?

What makes you think it's illegal to own a tank?

Tanks for sale

 

[Inthemiddle]

Now logically, if we can draw the line at nuclear weapons due to their level of impact, can we not draw the same line at any level for the same reason?

Logically, no. If nuclear weapons are an exception to the rule based on extraordinary circumstances, then that "exception" status becomes degraded as more and more exceptions are created. In order to preserve the circumstances that justify banning nuclear weapons as being extraordinary such as to warrant an exception, then all other exceptions must be, at the least, highly restricted to only those things that are also extraordinary.

Or, to say it more plainly.....

The "nuclear weapons" argument in regards to gun control is not logical in the first place. It is fallacy of accident, i.e. a case of finding an exception to a general rule, and then attempting to create or permit the exceptional case as the new general rule. Such arguments can be seen to be invalid easily enough based on their obvious nature of failing to take the exceptional circumstances into account. For example:

Bob: Children should mind their parents
George: No, they should resist them and run away like Tracy did after being beaten and abused by her father.
Bob: You're right. Children should resist their parents and run away. [note lack of qualifer regarding Tracy's exceptional circumstances]

Aside from this, fallacy of accident arguments also have a circular tendency as well, which further requires their rejection. Taking the nuclear weapons example, the reason nuclear weapons are okay to ban despite the second amendment is because they are so exceptional that the constitute and justify an exception from the normal rule. The permissibility of banning nuclear weapons is based on the fact that they are exceptional, and thus can be treated differently. However, if they way nuclear weapons are treated becomes the new standard approach to all treatment of weapons, then the first class is no longer entitled to be banned. Without being the exception, the original rules apply. And so it happens that invoking an exception to a general rule as grounds to change a general rule becomes question begging, because the justification proposed already rests on the presumption that conclusion being supported is already a valid conclusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now logically, if we can draw the line at nuclear weapons due to their level of impact, can we not draw the same line at any level for the same reason?

Logically, no. If nuclear weapons are an exception to the rule based on extraordinary circumstances, then that "exception" status becomes degraded as more and more exceptions are created. In order to preserve the circumstances that justify banning nuclear weapons as being extraordinary such as to warrant an exception, then all other exceptions must be, at the least, highly restricted to only those things that are also extraordinary.

Or, to say it more plainly.....

The "nuclear weapons" argument in regards to gun control is not logical in the first place. It is fallacy of accident, i.e. a case of finding an exception to a general rule, and then attempting to create or permit the exceptional case as the new general rule. Such arguments can be seen to be invalid easily enough based on their obvious nature of failing to take the exceptional circumstances into account. For example:

Bob: Children should mind their parents
George: No, they should resist them and run away like Tracy did after being beaten and abused by her father.
Bob: You're right. Children should resist their parents and run away. [note lack of qualifer regarding Tracy's exceptional circumstances]

Aside from this, fallacy of accident arguments also have a circular tendency as well, which further requires their rejection. Taking the nuclear weapons example, the reason nuclear weapons are okay to ban despite the second amendment is because they are so exceptional that the constitute and justify an exception from the normal rule. The permissibility of banning nuclear weapons is based on the fact that they are exceptional, and thus can be treated differently. However, if they way nuclear weapons are treated becomes the new standard approach to all treatment of weapons, then the first class is no longer entitled to be banned. Without being the exception, the original rules apply. And so it happens that invoking an exception to a general rule as grounds to change a general rule becomes question begging, because the justification proposed already rests on the presumption that conclusion being supported is already a valid conclusion.

Not to mention that it is actually ridiculously easy to build a nuclear weapon once you get your hands on the fissionable material.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not to mention that it is actually ridiculously easy to build a nuclear weapon once you get your hands on the fissionable material.

I wouldn't call it "ridiculously easy." A degree of knowledge and competency is required. But certainly it can be done, and there are examples in this country of every day people building and maintaining nuclear reactors. It just goes to show that prohibition cannot stop a criminal from producing his own weaponry in the first place.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I understand and agree with Marc's general point. I'm pro-Second Amendment, but a civilized country is intelligent and responsible enough to know that there are reasonable exceptions to every rule, that life isn't as simple and black and white as some would just love it to be. So a civilized country makes decisions as to what shade of gray any given general rule or issue is.

And it's very difficult to have reasonable conversations about any given issue when one side is too petulant and simplistic to even consider the possibility that life is shades of gray.

.

 

[jtpr312]

Actually you CAN buy and own a tank, next question?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I understand and agree with Marc's general point. I'm pro-Second Amendment, but a civilized country is intelligent and responsible enough to know that there are reasonable exceptions to every rule, that life isn't as simple and black and white as some would just love it to be.

I guess that's the problem. Exceptions to the rule demand exceptional conditions against which to apply those exceptions. In terms of weapons, guns are not exceptional. It's not reasonable to apply exceptions to basic weaponry in a country whose constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

 

[zeke]

I understand and agree with Marc's general point. I'm pro-Second Amendment, but a civilized country is intelligent and responsible enough to know that there are reasonable exceptions to every rule, that life isn't as simple and black and white as some would just love it to be.

I guess that's the problem. Exceptions to the rule demand exceptional conditions against which to apply those exceptions. In terms of weapons, guns are not exceptional. It's not reasonable to apply exceptions to basic weaponry in a country whose constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

You don't think that massacre's of school children with todays modern weapons are exceptional enough to warrant change in gun laws?

If that is the case, is there any amount of death and destruction that you would consider exceptional enough to bring about reasonable change?

 

[Sarah G]

I disagree with not being able to own a tank. Those things are great on snow.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You don't think that massacre's of school children with todays modern weapons are exceptional enough to warrant change in gun laws?

If that is the case, is there any amount of death and destruction that you would consider exceptional enough to bring about reasonable change?

Your reasonable change won't stop the death of school children.

 

[tjvh]

I disagree with not being able to own a tank. Those things are great on snow.

Don't worry... You can own a tank if you can afford one.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You don't think that massacre's of school children with todays modern weapons are exceptional enough to warrant change in gun laws?

No, because you've gone from fallacy of accident, to fallacy of equivocation.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not an absolute right. The right to bear arms can be limited for exceptional circumstances IN REGARDS TO ARMS THEMSELVES. In other words, exceptional weapons (like nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc.) warrant exceptions to the general rule because those weapons themselves are exceptional.

Guns are not exceptional. They are normal arms. The fact that crime is committed with weapons does create permissibility under the second amendment to impede the right of people to bear normal arms.

 

[midcan5]

One has to realize wingnuts have important priorities, like woman on contraceptives, or that person named Corporation - ever see him/her - or people in love who'd like the same rights as other people. Boobs bother them, rights bother them too, seems common sense missed them in that evolutionary pool. Oh that bothers them too.

No, because you've gone from fallacy of accident, to fallacy of equivocation.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not an absolute right. The right to bear arms can be limited for exceptional circumstances IN REGARDS TO ARMS THEMSELVES. In other words, exceptional weapons (like nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc.) warrant exceptions to the general rule because those weapons themselves are exceptional.

Guns are not exceptional. They are normal arms. The fact that crime is committed with weapons does create permissibility under the second amendment to impede the right of people to bear normal arms.

So circumstances matter, you lost your own argument.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

 

[zeke]

You don't think that massacre's of school children with todays modern weapons are exceptional enough to warrant change in gun laws?

No, because you've gone from fallacy of accident, to fallacy of equivocation.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not an absolute right. The right to bear arms can be limited for exceptional circumstances IN REGARDS TO ARMS THEMSELVES. In other words, exceptional weapons (like nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc.) warrant exceptions to the general rule because those weapons themselves are exceptional.

Guns are not exceptional. They are normal arms. The fact that crime is committed with weapons does create permissibility under the second amendment to impede the right of people to bear normal arms.

Really? You don't thing the founding fathers would have found an AR15 an "exceptional" weapon? The ability to fire dozens of rounds in seconds would not have been considered exceptional to George Washington? Are you sure?

But nice dodge on the numbers of deaths before change should be considered.

Why not just come out plainly and say; it does not matter how many innocent people are killed. I would not support any change to todays gun laws.

At least be honest that your desire for guns outweighs anyone elses concern for safety from guns.

And you know what. If the Bushmaster rifle used by Adam Luanza had not been on the rack for his mother to buy, Adam would not have had the use of such an effiecent killing weapon to use on those kids. That's the undeniable truth.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Really? You don't thing the founding fathers would have found an AR15 an "exceptional" weapon?

4,000,000 in lawful ownership, one in in every cop car in America, and they are sold at WALMART ?

Common usage.