Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[BasicHumanUnit]

The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce anything, because did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons'.

View attachment 617460


Post hoc fallacy

Yeah, maybe......

But DAMN they've come a LONG way in neutering the 2A since then. Maybe we shoulda done something THEN ???

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Its less than what we spend on Medicare and Social Security.

In 2017, Democrats raised holy hell over 4 billion for the Southern Border Wall to protect US citizens..........

Then in 2022 gladly sent 13 Billion to the Ukraine

Is it just me or does it seem Democrats don't like Americans very much?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, you were posting all kinds of irrelevant stuff about religious beliefs and how religion informed the founders / framers consideration of rights. It needed to be rebutted / corrected.



Rights function in all different ways under the myriad of political systems . . . This particular discussion is how they function under the US Constitution; that is not a question of great mystery or uncertainty. You are free to adopt a personal belief that aligns with a modern collectivist political model that forces you to reject the founder's / framer's conception and codification of their inherent, individual rights theory . . . That doesn't make them "wrong" or you "right" it just makes you an ignorant, insular, ideologue.



Have I ever argued that rights are not a product of the human mind and reason?
It's philosophy for fucks sake . . .



It's interesting the stuff that proves you wrong you call irrelevant.

.

Well, I'm thoroughly bored by this. Bye.

 

[Open Bolt]

My biggest problem is my denial of something you can't prove, doesn't exist and is nonsense.

I've provided you with plenty of proof that people have a right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

And the fact that arming the militia to do their job requires letting them have the sort of arms that they need to do their job is just straightforward logic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've provided you with plenty of proof that people have a right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

And the fact that arming the militia to do their job requires letting them have the sort of arms that they need to do their job is just straightforward logic.

Yeah, from ENGLAND, in a time when most people couldn't have guns.

And "straightforward logic" is..... well, you claiming there's a right to something because you think it should be this way. That's NOT logical.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yeah, from ENGLAND,

Which is where we inherited our system of laws and rights from.

in a time when most people couldn't have guns.

Wrong. The laws there specifically allowed people to have guns. That's where our right to keep and bear arms came from.

And "straightforward logic" is..... well, you claiming there's a right to something because you think it should be this way. That's NOT logical.

That is incorrect.

Protecting the right to have arms for a specific purpose means letting people have the sort of arms that are appropriate for that given purpose.

If you can't accept logic, that's not on me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is where we inherited our system of laws and rights from.



Wrong. The laws there specifically allowed people to have guns. That's where our right to keep and bear arms came from.



That is incorrect.

Protecting the right to have arms for a specific purpose means letting people have the sort of arms that are appropriate for that given purpose.

If you can't accept logic, that's not on me.

Yes, but that doesn't mean all laws under England are the same under the US, does it?

Literally that's all you have is that in England some people, not most people, just some people, could carry arms.

Wow.

Yes, but the problem with your argument is that up until 1817 every single RBA clause said for COMMON DEFENSE of some kind. Not a single one bothered to mention that it might be for sticking a gun up your bum.

We're dealing with LAW, not what you think it should be. I can't help you if you think law is whatever YOU think it is.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes, but that doesn't mean all laws under England are the same under the US, does it?

The rights that we inherited from England do indeed continue in the US.

Literally that's all you have is that in England some people, not most people, just some people, could carry arms.

No. ALL people in England had the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns for the private defense of their homes.

Unless you mean convicted felons or something, but their rights were removed through due process.

Yes, but the problem with your argument is that up until 1817 every single RBA clause said for COMMON DEFENSE of some kind.

That is not a problem for my argument. I do not deny that people had guns for common defense. They were also allowed to use their guns to defend their home.

It is a problem however for your argument, since the fact that the right is about common defense means that it is about those weapons which are most suitable for common defense.

We're dealing with LAW, not what you think it should be. I can't help you if you think law is whatever YOU think it is.

I have provided clear evidence that the right to keep and bear arms includes having guns for the private defense of your home.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think they do. I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.



I think they are, at least to the degree that they used to be with shotguns.

They don't always carry AR-15s, just like they don't always carry shotguns, but I think the AR-15 is up front with them in the patrol car.



Michigan State Police have full-auto MP5s in their trunk.



I think they will. And I assert a Constitutional right to have enough firepower to penetrate 3A Kevlar.



I disagree. Light rifles are perfect.



Many manufacturers make AR-10 platforms.



Those sound like unconstitutional laws that will soon be struck down.



If you want me to believe that cops keep their AR-15s in their trunk, I'll need to see a credible cite.



I think the cops choose the AR-15 because they want to be able to penetrate 3A Kevlar.



People can justify laws restricting full-auto as fulfilling a compelling government interest. Someone can do a lot of damage with a full-auto weapon.

I've yet to see anyone justify laws restricting AR-15s as fulfilling a compelling government interest when there are plenty of other semi-auto rifles that accept large magazines (and at least one pump rifle that accepts large magazines).

It depends on the department but most do keep their AR 15's in the trunk of the patrol vehicle. Also most departments do not issues automatic weapons. For one specific reason public and hitting bystanders.

 

[Open Bolt]

Also most departments do not issues automatic weapons. For one specific reason public and hitting bystanders.

A lot of SWAT teams have full-auto submachine guns.

I don't approve, for that hitting bystander reason. Full-auto seems to me to be contrary to the goals of law enforcement.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think they do. I think they keep the AR-15 in front like a shotgun.



I think they are, at least to the degree that they used to be with shotguns.

They don't always carry AR-15s, just like they don't always carry shotguns, but I think the AR-15 is up front with them in the patrol car.



Michigan State Police have full-auto MP5s in their trunk.



I think they will. And I assert a Constitutional right to have enough firepower to penetrate 3A Kevlar.



I disagree. Light rifles are perfect.



Many manufacturers make AR-10 platforms.



Those sound like unconstitutional laws that will soon be struck down.



If you want me to believe that cops keep their AR-15s in their trunk, I'll need to see a credible cite.



I think the cops choose the AR-15 because they want to be able to penetrate 3A Kevlar.



People can justify laws restricting full-auto as fulfilling a compelling government interest. Someone can do a lot of damage with a full-auto weapon.

I've yet to see anyone justify laws restricting AR-15s as fulfilling a compelling government interest when there are plenty of other semi-auto rifles that accept large magazines (and at least one pump rifle that accepts large magazines).

It depends on the department but most do keep their AR 15's in the trunk of the patrol vehicle. Also most departments do not issues automatic weapons. For one specific reason public and hitting bystanders.

A lot of SWAT teams have full-auto submachine guns.

I don't approve, for that hitting bystander reason. Full-auto seems to me to be contrary to the goals of law enforcement.

Swat teams don't drive patrol cars. You were talking about patrol officers not swat teams. And for that matter depending on the department not all swat teams are issued automatic weapons. Life isn't what you have seen in a movie.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The rights that we inherited from England do indeed continue in the US.



No. ALL people in England had the right to have guns, and the right to use those guns for the private defense of their homes.

Unless you mean convicted felons or something, but their rights were removed through due process.



That is not a problem for my argument. I do not deny that people had guns for common defense. They were also allowed to use their guns to defend their home.

It is a problem however for your argument, since the fact that the right is about common defense means that it is about those weapons which are most suitable for common defense.



I have provided clear evidence that the right to keep and bear arms includes having guns for the private defense of your home.

When you say "inherited", are you saying the rights in England were THE SAME as the rights in the Bill of Rights?

Because here's the problem with the rights in England. They weren't exactly for the whole of the people. Just Gentlemen or other groups.

For example: In the English Bill of Rights it says: ""Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law""

Not Catholics, not Muslims, not atheists, but ONLY Protestants. Does the US Bill of Rights give a big "fuck you" to anyone not a Protestant? This is only 102 years before the US Bill of Rights.

Just to clarify, you did say "ALL" in capital letters and bold type, right?

The problem here comes when you THINK you know what's what, but it just isn't so. You don't understand rights in the UK in the 1600s.....So you've made a huge mistake in your argument.

 

[Batcat]

You keep saying "the entire..." as if this somehow means it covers what you want it to cover as well as what it actually protects.

No, no, no, no and no. The 2A does not protect the right to self defense.


You're saying the Second Amendment protects the right of self defense because the 2A says "arms" and you can defend yourself with "arms".

So, the third amendment says "house" so it should protect everyone to have a house. Logical, based on what you said.

A potato isn't much of a weapon. Nor is a gun compared to a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean a potato can't be a weapon, nor does it mean a gun can't be a weapon.

If the 2A protects ALL WEAPONS then EVERYTHING can be a weapon.... think about it.

I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. That means I can carry a handgun concealed or I can carry a number of other weapons concealed. For example I can carry a switch blade knife concealed in my i pocket or a dagger concealed under my shirt As a neck knife. Not all states that allow concealed carry allow weapons other than firearms.

Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 790.06 | FindLaw

Florida Title XLVI. Crimes Section 790.06. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section.  Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee.  For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9) . Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 7 years from the date of issuance.  Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01 .  The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.  Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court. … emphasis added

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. That means I can carry a handgun concealed or I can carry a number of other weapons concealed. For example I can carry a switch blade knife concealed in my i pocket or a dagger concealed under my shirt As a neck knife. Not all states that allow concealed carry allow weapons other than firearms.

Florida Statutes Title XLVI. Crimes § 790.06 | FindLaw

Florida Title XLVI. Crimes Section 790.06. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section.  Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee.  For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9) . Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 7 years from the date of issuance.  Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01 .  The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.  Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court. … emphasis added

Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?

 

[Batcat]

Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?

There is an attempt to get Constitutional carry in Florida but it didn’t pass this year. Perhaps next.

The biggest advantage for me would be it would make it easier to carry a full sized handgun such as a 1911 .45 Auto. While not impossible, the heat in Florida makes it challenging to conceal such weapons so you end up carrying a compact firearm. I usually carry a snub nosed .S&W 38+P revolver in a pocket holster.

What Happened to Passing Constitutional Carry in Florida? ~ VIDEO Update!

What happened with the passage of Constitutional Carry law in the state of Florida? The simple answer is Florida politicians dropped the ball for the 3rd year in a row.

www.ammoland.com

 

[2aguy]

So you're saying rights can be infringed then? Right....

There is no right to "enough firepower for effective defense". You show me where this right has been enshrined.

So, if people have had their rights removed by "due process" (actually infringed upon), then the RKBA can be infringed.

The 2A was about the militia. We know it's about the militia because it starts with "A well regulated militia".

It does NOT start with "Dick, John and Dave want to defend their individual selves".

Go figure.

Find me one piece of evidence that shows the founding fathers made the 2A for individual self defense.

How many times do you morons have to be told the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with militia?

Up until the point where morons like you came along to do exactly what the Founders feared, disarming the citizens, everyone knew that people could own and carry guns for self defense, and they did just that...then, fascists like you realized you couldn't take control while people had guns....and the move to disarm people was created, and all of a sudden, the 2nd Amendment didn't mean people could own guns....

You totalitarian assholes are so predictable..

 

[2aguy]

Yes, you have a carry and conceal permit in Florida. If the US protected the right to carry, you wouldn't need a permit, a permit would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? If they're unconstitutional?

The NRA isn't God...you doofus...

Permits are being challenged in the Courts right now.....the FOID in Illinois, pemitting processes in the Supreme Court.....and we have to contend with fascists like you wearing robes...like the 3 plus one in the Supreme Court.......

 

[2aguy]

When you say "inherited", are you saying the rights in England were THE SAME as the rights in the Bill of Rights?

Because here's the problem with the rights in England. They weren't exactly for the whole of the people. Just Gentlemen or other groups.

For example: In the English Bill of Rights it says: ""Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law""

Not Catholics, not Muslims, not atheists, but ONLY Protestants. Does the US Bill of Rights give a big "fuck you" to anyone not a Protestant? This is only 102 years before the US Bill of Rights.

Just to clarify, you did say "ALL" in capital letters and bold type, right?

The problem here comes when you THINK you know what's what, but it just isn't so. You don't understand rights in the UK in the 1600s.....So you've made a huge mistake in your argument.

And we fixed that.......you are the asshole who wants to take guns away from people....

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...see, we fixed that defect from English monarchy....

 

[Batcat]

Yeah, maybe......

But DAMN they've come a LONG way in neutering the 2A since then. Maybe we shoulda done something THEN ???

Before the Assault Weapons ban the AR15 style rifles had a terrible reputation from Vietnam. They were considered underpowered and unreliable.

Once the ban happened the manufacturers removed a couple features and continued to produce the semi-automatic AR-15. A couple regular shooters at my pistol range decided to buy one to see what the fuss was about. They reported back that the AR-15 was actually a great rifle and worth buying.

Soon almost every regular shooter at my range had an AR-15 or several. Aftermarket parts that could be installed by the owner not requiring a gunsmith became available and the popularity of the weapon increased. High cap magazines made before a certain cut off date were also available but very expensive. Of course all the AR-15 owners had one or several high capacity magazines.

It was the Assault Weapons Ban that made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in the US. Banning stuff always makes it interesting. Don’t let anyone tell you that the Assault Weapons Ban stopped the sale of the AR-15 or other military style semi-automatic rifles. The fact that gun crime was dropping may well have been caused by the spread of shall issue concealed carry laws across the nation that was happening in the same time frame as the Assault Weapons Ban.

In passing, I never did buy an AR-15 or any other semi-auto black rifle. I am more of a handgun shooter.

How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle

The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute

www.nbcnews.com

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

bearingarms.com

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall.

www.forbes.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is an attempt to get Constitutional carry in Florida but it didn’t pass this year. Perhaps next.

The biggest advantage for me would be it would make it easier to carry a full sized handgun such as a 1911 .45 Auto. While not impossible, the heat in Florida makes it challenging to conceal such weapons so you end up carrying a compact firearm. I usually carry a snub nosed .S&W 38+P revolver in a pocket holster.

What Happened to Passing Constitutional Carry in Florida? ~ VIDEO Update!

What happened with the passage of Constitutional Carry law in the state of Florida? The simple answer is Florida politicians dropped the ball for the 3rd year in a row.

www.ammoland.com

The point is that if something is a protected right in the Constitution, it can't have a limit like a permit put on it.