Soft Heads In Senate Gun Control Hearing

[idb]

Please show how your statement logically follwos from what I posted.
Else, non-sequitur.

Please show where I said that every person should be allowed to own a gun regardless of mental state or intended use.
Else, strawman.

That you have been reduced to logical fallacies clearlt indicates you have run out of reasoned responses.

Crikey, you sound so reasoned yourself.
Yet, the logical corollary of rejecting any regulation of guns....

When did I reject any regulations of guns?
Oh that's right-- I haven't.

So, you're still arguing staw and non-sequitur.

Please feel free to try again.

You left out the rest of my post

it isn't the direct statements that you make but the logical conclusions from your position that give you away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well hello, fellow strawman.
Where are these things mentioned in The Constitution?

They are not -- and yet, even though the founders had no concept of them, the 1st/4th amendment still protects them.
The point is that the "technology of the 18th century" argument always fails.

Firearms are mentioned explicitly in the constitution so the actual intent of the writers, the circumstances of the times and the available technology is a relevant discussion.

Unfortunately for you and your point of view the SCotUS disagrees:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You may not like it, but it -is- the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Crikey, you sound so reasoned yourself.
Yet, the logical corollary of rejecting any regulation of guns....

When did I reject any regulations of guns?
Oh that's right-- I haven't.

So, you're still arguing staw and non-sequitur.

Please feel free to try again.

You left out the rest of my post

it isn't the direct statements that you make but the logical conclusions from your position that give you away.

Nothing here changes the fact that your response is/was based on things that I did not say and do not follow logically from what I did say.

Please continue with the strawmwn and the non-sequitur -- doing so only makes it more and more clear that there's no need to waste any more time on you.

 

[martybegan]

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

The purpose of the amendment was not to provide the public with weapons of mass destruction, but rather to provide citizens protection against a standing army which they strongly opposed. Today there is little opposition to a standing army and people do not purchase guns to protection themselves from that army.

Today, unlike the colonial times, we don't reply on mobs with guns to protect the rights of the individual but rather a legal system.

The colonists had a legal system as well that was supposed to protect them. How did that work out?

The "mobs" you talk about were independent citizens of the states, which had legal systems.

The purpose of the amendment was to re-inforce the notion of the free individual citizen, unrestricted in his (at the time) right to control over thier own life, liberty and happiness, something progressives seem to love giving up in the name of "safety"

 

[idb]

They are not -- and yet, even though the founders had no concept of them, the 1st/4th amendment still protects them.
The point is that the "technology of the 18th century" argument always fails.

Firearms are mentioned explicitly in the constitution so the actual intent of the writers, the circumstances of the times and the available technology is a relevant discussion.

Unfortunately for you and your point of view the SCotUS disagrees:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You may not like it, but it -is- the law.

True

 

[idb]

When did I reject any regulations of guns?
Oh that's right-- I haven't.

So, you're still arguing staw and non-sequitur.

Please feel free to try again.

You left out the rest of my post

it isn't the direct statements that you make but the logical conclusions from your position that give you away.

Nothing here changes the fact that your response is/was based on things that I did not say and do not follow logically from what I did say.

Please continue with the strawmwn and the non-sequitur -- doing so only makes it more and more clear that there's no need to waste any more time on you.

Wrong...they follow perfectly logically.

Please continue your efforts to backtrack using pedantry though.
As I said earlier, you're not hard to figure out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You left out the rest of my post

Nothing here changes the fact that your response is/was based on things that I did not say and do not follow logically from what I did say.

Please continue with the strawmwn and the non-sequitur -- doing so only makes it more and more clear that there's no need to waste any more time on you.

Wrong...they follow perfectly logically.

It is impossible for you to show this is true; you know this, which is why you will refuse to do so.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The founders had no idea of the amount of firepower they would be putting in the hands of the public when they adopted the 2nd amendment.

They also had no concept of cable news networks, the internet and cell phones.
Your point?

The purpose of the amendment was not to provide the public with weapons of mass destruction, but rather to provide citizens protection against a standing army which they strongly opposed. Today there is little opposition to a standing army and people do not purchase guns to protection themselves from that army.

Today, unlike the colonial times, we don't reply on mobs with guns to protect the rights of the individual but rather a legal system.

The fact that today there is little opposition to to a standing army or that we do not need "roving mobs with guns" may be very valid reasons to repeal the 2nd Amend. However, it is not a valid reason to ignore the 2nd Amend. In order to accomplish same, all you need do is follow the simple procedure found in Article V and convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose such a revision to the states. Then all you need do is convince 38 states to adopt such revision and you are done... "POOF" 2nd Amend disappears. Perhaps the Senate might take it up after they defeat the AWB?

Good Luck