Guys, please educate me on this 2nd Amendment Issue, I'm trying to understand

Discussion in 'Politics' started by shockedcanadian, Oct 4, 2017.

  1. antontoo
    Offline

    antontoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    8,302
    Thanks Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,117
    You think you can at some point be bothered to put your big-boy pants on and start to support your bare assertions?
     
  2. RDD_1210
    Offline

    RDD_1210 Forms his own opinions

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,892
    Thanks Received:
    1,445
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,818
    He said 600 rounds per minute. "per" indicates a rate. Not a total quantity.

    Remind us about the last level of school you completed successfully.
     
  3. RDD_1210
    Offline

    RDD_1210 Forms his own opinions

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,892
    Thanks Received:
    1,445
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,818
    Because your inability to grasp even basic concepts disqualifies you from adult discussions.
     
  4. RDD_1210
    Offline

    RDD_1210 Forms his own opinions

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,892
    Thanks Received:
    1,445
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,818
    Gun control can work, but this country is too bought and paid for my lobbyists and the NRA for anything to ever change.

    We had a competent president in office when dozens of children were murdered at school and not only did nothing change, gun laws on the whole become more lenient as a result.

    So there is NO way anything is changing knowing the president we have and the fact that our government is still bought and paid for.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. antontoo
    Offline

    antontoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    8,302
    Thanks Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,117
    [​IMG]

    Kinda crazy to watch intellectually developed President speak after witnessing Trump for half a year.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. bendog
    Online

    bendog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    21,641
    Thanks Received:
    2,274
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Dog House in back yard
    Ratings:
    +7,935
    Not wanting to get into partisanship on the issue, but these sites seem educational and without an agenda. Of course people will say that an article merely stating what courts have held in partisan because their personal interpretations should control what the constitution means. And I have no patience for their bullshit.

    The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

    Second Amendment

    The Cornell site discusses briefly the three most important court cases. My own editorial is that the first case, Miller, is both logically and historically dishonest because it had to reach a result, i.e. it had to be illegal in the 1930s for gangsters to carry sawed off shotguns. At the time of the decision, the Second Amendment was considered more about the states maintaining militas than individual rights to own guns, so if a gun was useful for a milita, it had some protection. (Although most everyone in the rural US had access to firearms, but they were regular old rifles shotguns and revolvers .. which was sort of the point of the Miller decision - a sawed off shotgun isn't much use unless you are trying to kill something at close range).

    The Supreme Court reached this laudable result by reasoning that cut-down shotguns were not military weapons. But that was total bs because the US Army (and the Canadians too perhaps) used shotguns in WWI trench warfare. Miller was also logically false because according to it, the government could ban the sale of Thompson submachine guns, which gangsters were thought to favor. But Winston Churchill shortly thereafter began importing as many of those guns as he could for the war against Hitler.

    Fast forward some fifty years later. Some cities were trying to eliminate hand guns. (and possibly other home defense firearms). Given the US's history from colonial times, FIVE out of NINE judges in Heller and again in McDonald just found it unacceptable that a government could prevent a person from keeping a loaded and ready to fire handgun in his own home. Other restrictions might be ok. Assault rifles? Carrying pistols outside the home? We now have different laws in different states. People disagree over what is reasonably restricted.

    Some people contend Heller is totally wrong, and there is no individual right to own guns. the Supreme Court disagrees, and probably won't change its mind. Other people say they have an absolute right to own whatever they want (presumably not including actual machine guns or rocket launchers) any damn place they choose. The Supreme Court has not agreed, and most likely is not going to.

    btw, Canadian gun laws have always seemed historically curious to me - no insult intended in anyway. US gun laws are historically curious too. For example, in the 19th Century American West, places like Dodge City prohibited carrying handguns in places frequented by drunk cowboys. Probably wise at the time, but more a curious anomaly today.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. miketx
    Online

    miketx Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    28,526
    Thanks Received:
    2,877
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +31,701
    He's an America hating pos.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. shockedcanadian
    Offline

    shockedcanadian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Thanks Received:
    1,023
    Trophy Points:
    335
    Ratings:
    +4,520
    Good responses guys thanks.

    I wrote a long response but I have a habit of doing that, so I will just be quick and state, I understand why people support the 2nd Amendment, and why there is logic to support even autos. I will say, if somehow the government became tyrannic, the imbalance in weapons would be massive, and even 1000 automatic weapons wouldn't tip the scale. From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British). So, I think support for automatics and the like to fight a tyrannic government isn't a realistic benefit/reason.

    The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding. I wish this narrative would receive more airtime in Canada and in other outlets. At the same time, I don't think the outrage against autos and modifiers is misplaced.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  9. miketx
    Online

    miketx Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    28,526
    Thanks Received:
    2,877
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +31,701
    The outrage is coming from all sorts, from commie rights hating libs, to whiny cry baby media fed morons. No law would have stopped this guy. It's already against the law to murder someone, so why didn't that stop him?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    138,689
    Thanks Received:
    22,148
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +58,522
    By all means...lets have BATF ban them and prosecute those who possess them
     

Share This Page