Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one should take conservatives seriously because they’re consistently wrong on the issues – or they’re lying about the issues.

It's a good thing I am not a conservative.


What's even more strange is your signature, give the topic of discussion and your apparent position:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Let's just go ahead and get that idiotic response out of the way.

 

[sakinago]

to the OP. I believe in the second amendment. I also believe that no average citizen needs an assault rifle, a bazooka, or a tank. Bazookas and tanks are easy to control. the problem arises when we try to define an assault rifle. My definition would be any gun that can be set for continuous fire. As long as you have to pull the trigger on each round, it should be permitted.
IMHO.

This is a little bit of gun ignorance showing. What you described is called fully automatic, this is banned for the most part, essentially any automatic made after the ban in the 80s is banned. There are grandfathered autos older than the ban floating around, but they are very expensive and highly regulated, as in pretty much you look at the gun wrong, and you and everyone around you gets arrested. They’re also all registered, not just anyone can get these. There are pistols that are full auto, look just like your standard pistols. There are also machine pistols, which are just pistol receivers with stocks and longer barrels that are full auto, like an MP5 you’ve probably seen many times in movies. These are pistols, they chamber pistol rounds like 9mm, and just like pistols they are very inaccurate at long range (despite what you see in the movies where the good guy shoots 3 times and gets 3 headshots), which is just not realistic at all. Swat teams like machine pistols in close quarters, but they aren’t accurate at all. Now the assault rifles you are thinking of, are just rifles that look like M16s or AK47s. And they’re just rifles, they are also semiautomatic, meaning you pull the trigger and it only shoots once, just like a pistol. And like rifles (the rifles that they are) they are pretty darn accurate at long ranges. And paddock used a bump stock to make the rate of fire quicker, and you may be thinking we should ban these. But the same can be done with pulling rubber bands back on the trigger, fires like an automatic. Or apparently you can pretty easily make a hand crank device that’ll shoot just as fast as an automatic too. They’re all also highly innacurate. But anyway, if that’s your definition of assault rifle, they’re pretty much already banned, and if not, incredibly highly regulated.

Now people don’t need to own and operate SESNAs, which are even more dangerous than full automatics. Not even a swat team could stop a guy like paddock (who did have his pilots liscence) from loading one of those up with explosives (like he had), and crashing it into a football stadium and killing hundreds. And besides that, Seanas are just dangerous in general, even if you’re intentions are pure. People don’t need to own Lamborghinis, which are pretty much Rocketships on wheels. People also don’t need to own crotch rockets with 1000 some cc ‘s, Or better yet motorcycles that use a jet engine as power. But the problem isn’t with the objects themselves, it’s the people using them. Should the stupid and dangerous dictate everyone else’s freedoms who wish to own these things?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz (Democrat, Liberal, Harvard Law Professor)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

I'm just "appealing to ignorance" here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By calling attention to “a well regulated militia,” the “security” of the nation, and the right of each citizen “to keep and bear arms,” our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.
~JFK

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
―George Washington

The only way a government can secure compliance with its laws is by maintaining the threat of force or violence.

Likewise, all liberty is ultimately protected by the threat of violence.

When force is heavily imbalanced in favor of government against the governed, violence is no longer a threat, and liberty is no longer secured.

It follows, then, that the most important liberty is the possession of the tools necessary to protect all other liberties. The tools necessary must be powerful enough to balance the threat. When one side has military-grade weapons and the other is reduced to flint-lock rifles, swords, knives, stones, and strong language, liberty is not secure.

Most libertarians will accept some measure of restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, but the authoritarian side does not want to back down. The authoritarians will push until there is no right, and the people are no longer self-governing, but are subjects.

Even with the current firearm restrictions, the people still maintain the balance of force, but there is no room for further restrictions. If the authoritarians win, and we are deprived the right to at least semi-automatic rifles with extended magazines, not only will American liberties be at risk, but the entire world.

The status quo, at a minimum, MUST be maintained if we are to resist the authoritarian lust for power, control, and suppression of individual liberties.

If you value free speech, if you value free press, religion, or privacy, you MUST maintain your ability to protect those liberties.

If you are not armed, you are a shitty citizen. Arm yourselves, and quit being part of the problem.

 

[Flash]

There should never be illegal to own any firearm. The only crime we should have is for using the firearm in an illegal manner.

 

[The Irish Ram]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

That is beyond idotic. No fantasy. No dreams of heroism.
Those two that were ready to invade my home had a flashlight. I had a rifle. Guess who pussed out..

As for a line, we have the same train of thought that our founding father's had. Of all our rights, this one came with a warning for our government. Do Not Infringe Upon This Right!
There ya go. There is the line.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions

Why don't you prove it?

I have provided tons of proof backing my positions. Where is your?

Who gives a fuck what you thing?

NOBODY takes your insignificant ass seriously. You're a nobody.

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

It is why nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about anything, much less morals, economics, the law, politics, or even being legal to the law instead of merely practicing the abomination of hypocrisy, and blaming less fortunate illegals.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

No one should take conservatives seriously because they’re consistently wrong on the issues – or they’re lying about the issues.

I Only pay attention to them because they may be right, twice a day.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Billy000]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

That is beyond idotic. No fantasy. No dreams of heroism.
Those two that were ready to invade my home had a flashlight. I had a rifle. Guess who pussed out..

As for a line, we have the same train of thought that our founding father's had. Of all our rights, this one came with a warning for our government. Do Not Infringe Upon This Right!
There ya go. There is the line.

You’re not answering the exact question. Are you okay with ANYONE being able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? It is after all such a precious bill of right!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Citizens are at liberty to seek to place limits on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment through the political process, where their elected representatives enact firearm regulatory measures.

No, they are not at that liberty. The Const explicitly says that no govt in the U.S. can make laws that infringe the right to own and carry guns.

So their "elected representatives" are forbidden to "enact firearm regulatory measures".

Nice try.

P.S. Of course, many of those representatives simply violate that part of the Constitution any time it pleases them. The biggest mistake the Framers made when writing the Const and Bill of Rights, is leaving out a statement declaring penalties for lawmakers who violate them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Still not citing a source, I see. Philosophy according your ass, or what you pull from it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You’re not answering the exact question. Are you okay with ANYONE being able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? It is after all such a precious bill of right!

Any adult. The question turns back on you. Why are you not okay with it?

It is a natural right that preserves all others and prevents the communist revolution the left has been trying to pull off for 100 years.

The left cannot rule with that red iron fist if we have guns. Deny it all you want.

 

[Billy000]

You’re not answering the exact question. Are you okay with ANYONE being able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? It is after all such a precious bill of right!

Any adult. The question turns back on you. Why are you not okay with it?

It is a natural right that preserves all others and prevents the communist revolution the left has been trying to pull off for 100 years.

The left cannot rule with that red iron fist if we have guns. Deny it all you want.

Any adult huh? Even if they are mentally ill? But why draw the line at adults anyway? Kids have freedom of speech. Wouldn’t the same logic apply?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Any adult huh? Even if they are mentally ill? But why draw the line at adults anyway? Kids have freedom of speech. Wouldn’t the same logic apply?

Sure. Fine. And the rest of us would mow those motherfuckers down in short order. Natural selection.

Do you really think much would change? We heard the same bullshit when the concealed carry laws were being passed. How much really changed?

You are afraid of guns, aren't you?

 

[Billy000]

Any adult huh? Even if they are mentally ill? But why draw the line at adults anyway? Kids have freedom of speech. Wouldn’t the same logic apply?

Sure. Fine. And the rest of us would mow those motherfuckers down in short order. Natural selection.

Do you really think much would change? We heard the same bullshit when the concealed carry laws were being passed. How much really changed?

You are afraid of guns, aren't you?

Lol you’ll say anything when you’re backed into a corner huh? That’s so dumb. No guns don’t scare me. I am perfectly fine with people owning hand guns or shot guns so long as gun owners are registered and screened. Freedom comes with responsibility.