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

[Dubya]

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

Nobody can "bear" a tank.

/thread

How about rocket launchers?

Those are nice and handy.

But you can't own those...do you agree with that?

Why don't you enlighten me with a link to the number of times a rocket launcher was used in America during the commission of a crime. The idiot gun grabbers who use the Nuclear Weapon talking points with regards to gun control are a blessing to those of us who own guns... They are the most extreme dingbats the left has to offer, and do nothing but alienate rational people on both sides of the political spectrum. Have at it Marc... You're making your fellow gun grabbers look as foolish as you do.

It makes sense to me, because the 2nd Amendment says arms and not guns.

 

[Dubya]

It is also worth mentioning that when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, private citizens owned the exact same kind of weapons as the government. Muskets, cannons, flint lock pistols, swords, naval vessels, etc were all owned by private citizens and at times lent to the government.

It is interesting that arguably the greatest period of Democratic progress in the world was during a time when the people of the world could easily acquire the exact same weapons as the people in power. Level playing field.

I often wonder, if the guys who founded America wanted the government to have more weapons, or deadlier weapons, than the citizens, how come they never enacted laws while they were in power to make it so? How come they never had an income tax? Entitlements? Etc.

The government didn't have any weapons, when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. There was no standing army.

 

[MDiver]

There are times when I wouldn't mind driving an M1A1 Abrams. Some drivers and their vehicles who drive aggresively, need to be squashed.
But, while a tank can be legally purchased, its cost eliminates my being able to afford one, so I will just have to settle for flipping them off.

 

[Dubya]

They can keep it, Odd Ball!

Actually Oddball may have had the answer we need -- if we decide it's the answer we need...

If we say A2 meant "bear" as in "what you can carry", then all the gummint has to do is to require that all "assault rifles" (pistols, BB guns, pick your poison) must weigh 500 pounds. And anybody who can deal with that can do what they like. That way, everything's Constitutional.

Oddball: gun control enabler. Who knew.

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

 

[boedicca]

Actually Oddball may have had the answer we need -- if we decide it's the answer we need...

If we say A2 meant "bear" as in "what you can carry", then all the gummint has to do is to require that all "assault rifles" (pistols, BB guns, pick your poison) must weigh 500 pounds. And anybody who can deal with that can do what they like. That way, everything's Constitutional.

Oddball: gun control enabler. Who knew.

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

Yes, I'm sure you're sure. But that's a faith-based response, not actual proof of the usage of the then contemporary usage of "to bear".

 

[Pogo]

The only logic-leap is the insistence that only weapons in existence at the time the Constitution was written should be allowed.

-- That's it? You don't want to defend or explain your premise here?
Shit, you were doing so well. Don't give up now...

I thought it was a fairly simple concept. Guess I need to start writing at, say, a 4th-grade level?

Guess it was a flash in the pan then. Too bad, here I thought you were progressing beyond the drive-by.

Too much to expect...

 

[Pogo]

They can keep it, Odd Ball!

Actually Oddball may have had the answer we need -- if we decide it's the answer we need...

If we say A2 meant "bear" as in "what you can carry", then all the gummint has to do is to require that all "assault rifles" (pistols, BB guns, pick your poison) must weigh 500 pounds. And anybody who can deal with that can do what they like. That way, everything's Constitutional.

Oddball: gun control enabler. Who knew.

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

Yeah, I told him that at the time. But to use his narrow definition opens up the Pandora's Box noted above.

 

[Dubya]

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

Yes, I'm sure you're sure. But that's a faith-based response, not actual proof of the usage of the then contemporary usage of "to bear".

No, it isn't a faith base response, because I don't want people carrying guns, so how sure are you? Your as bad as the other side thinking you know what people think before you even hear them. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the gun nuts. If you don't know something, why don't you keep your mouth shut.

I checked the word bear and how it was used in 1789 and the only logical meaning for keep and bear arms was bear meant carry. Is "to be equipped with" in the dictionary?

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.

 

[Pogo]

Actually Oddball may have had the answer we need -- if we decide it's the answer we need...

If we say A2 meant "bear" as in "what you can carry", then all the gummint has to do is to require that all "assault rifles" (pistols, BB guns, pick your poison) must weigh 500 pounds. And anybody who can deal with that can do what they like. That way, everything's Constitutional.

Oddball: gun control enabler. Who knew.

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

And obviously you can't carry a stealth bomber or a nuke. But do you think they meant by this to also exclude cannon?

 

[Dubya]

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

And obviously you can't carry a stealth bomber or a nuke. But do you think they meant by this to also exclude cannon?

You can keep one though. The 2nd Amendment says keep and bear arms.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

Yes, I'm sure you're sure. But that's a faith-based response, not actual proof of the usage of the then contemporary usage of "to bear".

No, it isn't a faith base response, because I don't want people carrying guns, so how sure are you? Your as bad as the other side thinking you know what people think before you even hear them. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the gun nuts. If you don't know something, why don't you keep your mouth shut.

I checked the word bear and how it was used in 1789 and the only logical meaning for keep and bear arms was bear meant carry. Is "to be equipped with" in the dictionary?

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.

This is persuasive. I don't see "to wield" in there.

Of course strictly speaking "to keep and bear arms" means you can own them and you can carry them; it doesn't say you can shoot them.

Just sayin'.

 

[whitehall]

The ironic thing is that an in depth background check might disqualify the president from purchasing a handgun because of his questionable (forged?) birth certificate and his drug use admitted in his biography.

 

[Dubya]

Yes, I'm sure you're sure. But that's a faith-based response, not actual proof of the usage of the then contemporary usage of "to bear".

No, it isn't a faith base response, because I don't want people carrying guns, so how sure are you? Your as bad as the other side thinking you know what people think before you even hear them. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the gun nuts. If you don't know something, why don't you keep your mouth shut.

I checked the word bear and how it was used in 1789 and the only logical meaning for keep and bear arms was bear meant carry. Is "to be equipped with" in the dictionary?

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.

This is persuasive. I don't see "to wield" in there.

Of course strictly speaking "to keep and bear arms" means you can own them and you can carry them; it doesn't say you can shoot them.

Just sayin'.

It's one of those things I'll research, but to get those court cases, I'll have to go on some sites that have established opinions. I hate doing that and like primary sources without an opinion attached.

I don't know how it was changed.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Now they are saying he didn't use it on the kids...that coroner has some "splaining" to do.

NBC Admitted: No 'Assault Rifle' Used in Newtown Shooting Independent Journal Review

 

[Pogo]

The ironic thing is that an in depth background check might disqualify the president from purchasing a handgun because of his questionable (forged?) birth certificate and his drug use admitted in his biography.

Bizarro Desperation Post of the Day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

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.

.

Until you define reasonable exceptions in a way that is actually reasonable you don't actually have a point, all you have is an attempt to impose your ideas on other people who, quite reasonably, disagree with you.

I would define "reasonable expectations" as expectations on which reasonable people reach agreement.

I would define "agreement" as an arrangement that is accepted by the various reasonable people to an issue, even when (horrors) those reasonable people initially don't agree.

I would not define simplistic, uncooperative absolutists as reasonable people.

.

You say that like you actually know what reasonable means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Logically again, I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second. Either they cannot be infringed, or they can.

It may come down to how we define "arms". Clearly nukes and tanks and planes and semiautomatic guns did not exist in 1788, so the argument can be made, credibly, that "arms" in the Second Amendment means no more than what it meant in 1788, as it would be impossible to discern the future.

That would be the "every man gets a musket" argument, and it too is logically sound.

If you want to limit legally-allowed weapons to only those available at the time of the writing of the Constitution, then you have to also accept that the First Amendment doesn't cover speech on the internet, on television and radio; The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery doesn't exist; and the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, doesn't exist.

How about it? If you want to arbitrarily limit freedoms, limit them all.

That's an interesting logic-leap. Let's take it apart...

While the progression from sloppy musket to Minié ball to semiauto to nukes can be said to radically redefine the nature of "arms", the same cannot be said of the concept of "speech" as a result of internet and broadcasting. True, these technologies greatly expand the scope of the audience hearing that speech, as arms technology greatly expands the scope of what arms can do; but since speech is communication of ideas and arms is communication of deadly force, they are of two different natures. To make this equation requires that the criterion be reduced to how many people are affected by said Constitutional right, rather than the nature of that right. The reach of speech changed with mass media, but the nature did not. And more to the point, speech is not life-endangering.

I'd say the question of types of speech (hate speech, pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater) would be much more to the point of defining A1 than how many people you can reach with it.

An interesting extension, although how you can apply the same extension to A13 and A19 eludes me. These are neither a question of quantity (how many women or slaves exist) nor of nature (definition of woman, definition of slave).

Excuse me?

Are you aware of the progress of arms before the invention of the firearm? Do you honestly believe that the founders were ignorant of it just because you think flint knives are toys?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually Oddball may have had the answer we need -- if we decide it's the answer we need...

If we say A2 meant "bear" as in "what you can carry", then all the gummint has to do is to require that all "assault rifles" (pistols, BB guns, pick your poison) must weigh 500 pounds. And anybody who can deal with that can do what they like. That way, everything's Constitutional.

Oddball: gun control enabler. Who knew.

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

Which explains why they did not use horses, donkeys, or wagons, to move anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a rather narrow definition of "to bear". It can also mean simply "to be equipped with".

I'm sure the bear they meant in 1789 meant to carry.

Yes, I'm sure you're sure. But that's a faith-based response, not actual proof of the usage of the then contemporary usage of "to bear".

You could point out that private citizens could actually bear cannons, the powder necessary to use them, and a bunch of cannonballs, but I prefer mockery.

 

[GoneBezerk]

No sane person is claiming they should own a tank or a nuclear weapon, but liberal scum just make up those claims so they will have more stupud shit to post here.