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

[Quantum Windbag]

Lol me too. Heck ya I want a tank. Who wouldn't.

I can't afford the gas.

It's not as fun if they're not weaponized anyway

They require you to plug the barrel, but those barrels are designed to be changed.

Just saying.

 

[LibertyLemming]

meh effort

 

[daveman]

I hope someone's pointed this out already, but:

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

It's illegal to buy or own and tank?



Ooops.

Armor Page 1

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I can't afford the gas.

It's not as fun if they're not weaponized anyway

They require you to plug the barrel, but those barrels are designed to be changed.

Just saying.

Imagine the fun you'd have mud bogging in one of those things.

 

[daveman]

You said a tank.

Game over.

And now I'm saying a rocket launcher.

Game on.

Need help moving the goalposts, Fail Boi?

 

[daveman]

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. .

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.

 

[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.

.

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.

.

 

[daveman]

Why do you support politicians and policies that want this woman disarmed?

Funny how you don't support this woman's right to choose.

 

[Harry Dresden]

How about nuclear weapons?

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

Why/why not?

wont fit in my Garage Marc......so no for me.....

 

[Pogo]

It's not as fun if they're not weaponized anyway

They require you to plug the barrel, but those barrels are designed to be changed.

Just saying.

Imagine the fun you'd have mud bogging in one of those things.

See -- that's exactly why you don't want an automatic transmission.

^^ autonomic transmission hater

 

[Pogo]

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. .

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).

 

[daveman]

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.

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).

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

 

[boedicca]

If the police where I live start using tanks against citizens, then I'd support private ownership.

Basically, law enforcement shouldn't have superior weapons to those available to law-abiding citizens (who are the real front line of defense against criminals).

 

[Pogo]

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.

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).

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...

 

[Dubya]

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

Nobody can "bear" a tank.

/thread

They can keep it, Odd Ball!

 

[Dubya]

And you can own a rocket launcher. In fact, in Los Angeles (I think) duting their "gun return or whatever" they had 2 rocket launchers turned in. I bet that was a 200 credit for food hehe

It was just the tube, no rockets.

 

[Pogo]

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

Nobody can "bear" a tank.

/thread

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

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).

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?

 

[Dubya]

Having a populous with equal arms as the government creates a responsible government, which we clearly do not have.

I was in the military, but was never in the government.

 

[boedicca]

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

Nobody can "bear" a tank.

/thread

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".