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

[zeke]

Really? You don't thing the founding fathers would have found an AR15 an "exceptional" weapon?

4,000,000 in lawful ownership, one in in every cop car in America, and they are sold at WALMART ?

Common usage.

There is probably a point you are trying to make. What is it?

and BTW, there are a bunch of semi auto assault weapons in the hands of people who are not allowed, by law to own them. What you want to do about them? Remember the felon killing firefighters in NY? With an AR15. Or the guy in Ohio with a felony and 15 semi auto rifles. Yea, you responsible gun owners are sure doing a good job of keeping those weapons out of the wrong hands.

Hey but would George Washington have found an AR15 an exceptional weapon or not?

 

[OODA_Loop]

and BTW, there are a bunch of semi auto assault weapons in the hands of people who are not allowed, by law to own them. What you want to do about them?

Punish illegal possession with hard labor.

Punish projection of force with hard labor for life.

Punish the taking of life with swift and certain execution.

All after due process.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hey but would George Washington have found an AR15 an exceptional weapon or not?

Not thru the 2013 aperture.

 

[tjvh]

Really? You don't thing the founding fathers would have found an AR15 an "exceptional" weapon?

4,000,000 in lawful ownership, one in in every cop car in America, and they are sold at WALMART ?

Common usage.

There is probably a point you are trying to make. What is it?

and BTW, there are a bunch of semi auto assault weapons in the hands of people who are not allowed, by law to own them. What you want to do about them? Remember the felon killing firefighters in NY? With an AR15. Or the guy in Ohio with a felony and 15 semi auto rifles. Yea, you responsible gun owners are sure doing a good job of keeping those weapons out of the wrong hands.

Hey but would George Washington have found an AR15 an exceptional weapon or not?

Of course there are guns in the hands of people who are not allowed to have them. You do know that in the Webster, NY firefighter killings the convicted felon used guns purchased by a friend (Dawn Nguyen) who is currently awaiting her fate in a Court of Law, and she is going to get crucified for her actions. Chicago (a gun free zone) had over 500 homicides in 2012. The Sandy Hook tragedy was committed with guns not owned by the shooter, who also killed the owner of those guns... His Mom. Had she survived I assure you she would be in just as much hot water as Ms. Nguyen is today. So tell me Einstein... How do you propose eradicating guns from people who aren't supposed to have them? And how does restricting the gun Rights of Law abiding citizens lead to less gun crime when statistically the previous so-called assault weapons ban had zero effect on reducing crime?

 

[Pogo]

Now logically, if we can draw the line at nuclear weapons due to their level of impact, can we not draw the same line at any level for the same reason?

Logically, no. If nuclear weapons are an exception to the rule based on extraordinary circumstances, then that "exception" status becomes degraded as more and more exceptions are created. In order to preserve the circumstances that justify banning nuclear weapons as being extraordinary such as to warrant an exception, then all other exceptions must be, at the least, highly restricted to only those things that are also extraordinary.

Or, to say it more plainly.....

The "nuclear weapons" argument in regards to gun control is not logical in the first place. It is fallacy of accident, i.e. a case of finding an exception to a general rule, and then attempting to create or permit the exceptional case as the new general rule. Such arguments can be seen to be invalid easily enough based on their obvious nature of failing to take the exceptional circumstances into account. For example:

Bob: Children should mind their parents
George: No, they should resist them and run away like Tracy did after being beaten and abused by her father.
Bob: You're right. Children should resist their parents and run away. [note lack of qualifer regarding Tracy's exceptional circumstances]

Aside from this, fallacy of accident arguments also have a circular tendency as well, which further requires their rejection. Taking the nuclear weapons example, the reason nuclear weapons are okay to ban despite the second amendment is because they are so exceptional that the constitute and justify an exception from the normal rule. The permissibility of banning nuclear weapons is based on the fact that they are exceptional, and thus can be treated differently. However, if they way nuclear weapons are treated becomes the new standard approach to all treatment of weapons, then the first class is no longer entitled to be banned. Without being the exception, the original rules apply. And so it happens that invoking an exception to a general rule as grounds to change a general rule becomes question begging, because the justification proposed already rests on the presumption that conclusion being supported is already a valid conclusion.

Wow! Somebody actually wants to do the topic and talk about logic. I did not see that coming but it's refreshing

I see what you're saying but I would challenge the basis of "exception to the rule/fallacy of accident". I submit that our starting point in the Second Amendment is not a "rule" as in "how things normally behave" but a "right" as in "what the government may not do". As a law therefore, it's not open to exceptions.

When we say, back in the example:
Bob: Children should mind their parents
That's a general guideline, not a law. "Should" is an opinion of philosophy. The law however must be specific and cover all scenaria.

When that story of a TV talking head brandishing a gun magazine the possession of which was illegal in the city where it was broadcast was going around, many here correctly made the point that "the law is the law". Which is true; we can't just say "the speed limit is 55 but I'm late for work" and expect the law to stand aside.

So I would submit that what we have here is not an exception to a rule but a degree of relativity. If (hypothetically) the government declares that no, I cannot possess a nuke because of the scale of damage it can do, yet I can possess the XYZ-999 gun because it does a lesser scale of damage, then the former ruling on nukes is unconstitutional, because we're discriminating based on degrees, and there's nothing in the Second Amendment that allows degrees of "shall not be infringed".

-- Which is the argument that those against "assault rifle" bans make, and it is logically sound.

Laws, I submit, must be set in stone and never bend, most especially of all a Constitution. Once we start bending this Article and that Amendment, we no longer have a Constitution to stand on. So it comes down to, either the Constitution is to be interpreted for what it says (and I get my nuke), or we make exceptions. If we can make an exception for a nuke (which is eminently reasonable), then we can make an exception for a stealth bomber, and so on down the line of relativity, and the question reduces to no more than where that line is drawn...

Man, I like this SCOTUS dress. Feels good. Makes me look fat though

Now back to the "fallacy of accident" -- can we interpret the technological development of weaponry since 1788 as an "accident" that therefore qualifies the contents of the Constitution? Certainly there have been many; in those days they didn't even have accurate rifles, let alone the concept of flight.

Or do we simply need a new Amendment to update the one from 1788?

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[Two Thumbs]

How about nuclear weapons?

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

Why/why not?

Proof of the stewpud.


other than having to deal with freedom hating liberals....

we are supposed to have the same weapons available to us.

read any Founders letters about it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So circumstances matter, you lost your own argument.

Uh....no, I didn't. Apparently you lost your argument because you just demonstrated your ignorance of logic.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Of course the stupid fuck ghetto trash sees no difference in owning a tank or nuclear weapon to guard their home and family compared to a gun.

It's kinda like we allow people to own a domesticated house cat, but not a lion in their house......shithead.

How about nuclear weapons?

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

Why/why not?

 

[freedombecki]

Crazy thing is you CAN own a tank. Armor Page 1

Wow, some of those tanks look like they'd be a challenge. I'll take the one with the automatic transmission.

 

[Plasmaball]

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

So these are legal to own eh? Interesting...

I'm not gonna google it, we have to start believing each other on this board no matter what side we're on.

There's truth and then there's lies.

I don't want to have to Google everything, that takes away from my enjoyment on the site. I do enough googling for my work and research.

If you say it's legal...I have to take your word for it.

well you can own tanks privately, but i don't know what regulations on the firing parts are. Not to say you cant use it as a ram.

Personally i don't give a shit about what you want to own. Just make sure the proper checks and paperwork is done. It won't solve the issue 100% BUT it will cut down on crazies buying things.
Also no selling to drunk people.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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?

What in the Hell?? There are two things that I despise on this board. The first thing is obtuse argumentation. The second is deliberately twisting my words around. You've accomplished both right there.

You need to go get an education on fundamentals of logic. The "nuclear weapons" is fallacy of accident. Stop whining about the fact. I'm not even going to bother picking apart the rest of your inflammatory BS. Such classless trolling is not worthy of being regarded as meaningful discourse.

 

[Misty]

Crazy thing is you CAN own a tank. Armor Page 1

Wow, some of those tanks look like they'd be a challenge. I'll take the one with the automatic transmission.

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

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

The concern you raise is one of constitutional ambiguity and interpretation. We are left to ask, what is the meaning of the second amendment. Does it establish an absolute right? Or does it establish a right that applies only to certain circumstances? And if only certain circumstances, which circumstances?

The courts have already answered many of the relevant questions. Either way, the nuclear weapons argument remains useless for the purposes of supporting restrictive gun control. If the right is absolute, than restriction of nuclear weapons is unconstitutional along with every and any restriction on guns. If the right is not absolute, then the argument still remains fallacy of accident.

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.

The courts have already found better alternatives. I'll have to see if I can find the specific cases. But in a nutshell, the courts have ruled that the second amendment protects a right to bear "normal" weapons, or weapons in common use, as well as weapons that are suited for normal, lawful purposes, but that the intent of the founders was not to necessarily establish a right exceptionally dangerous weapons (like a grenade launcher, for example). This approach preserves the fundamental right to bear arms, while also special consideration for exceptional cases like nuclear weapons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not to mention that it is actually ridiculously easy to build a nuclear weapon once you get your hands on the fissionable material.

I wouldn't call it "ridiculously easy." A degree of knowledge and competency is required. But certainly it can be done, and there are examples in this country of every day people building and maintaining nuclear reactors. It just goes to show that prohibition cannot stop a criminal from producing his own weaponry in the first place.

It only gets complicated if you want to build one that is small enough to transport easily, if you want to build one like Fat Man it is a lot simpler, which is why I said ridiculously easy. I remember reading about a grad student who worked out the equations, and provided precise information on what type of explosive to use, to build a much higher yield weapon, and that was back in the 1980s when explosives were less efficient.

 

[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.

 

[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.

I guess that's the problem. Exceptions to the rule demand exceptional conditions against which to apply those exceptions. In terms of weapons, guns are not exceptional. It's not reasonable to apply exceptions to basic weaponry in a country whose constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

You don't think that massacre's of school children with todays modern weapons are exceptional enough to warrant change in gun laws?

If that is the case, is there any amount of death and destruction that you would consider exceptional enough to bring about reasonable change?

Did he use exceptional weapons? If he had used an antique Samurai sword and done the same thing would you support a ban on Swiss Army knives?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One has to realize wingnuts have important priorities, like woman on contraceptives, or that person named Corporation - ever see him/her - or people in love who'd like the same rights as other people. Boobs bother them, rights bother them too, seems common sense missed them in that evolutionary pool. Oh that bothers them too.

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.

So circumstances matter, you lost your own argument.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

I have a picture too.

The really interesting part of this is I actually forgot my high school had a firing range, and I actually used it. (No cracks about age and memory, I still know more than most of the people on this forum, and some of what I know is actually true.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Crazy thing is you CAN own a tank. Armor Page 1

Wow, some of those tanks look like they'd be a challenge. I'll take the one with the automatic transmission.

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

I can't afford the gas.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Wow, some of those tanks look like they'd be a challenge. I'll take the one with the automatic transmission.

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