The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

Good thing your hero Hitler took them away from the German Jews, otherwise the German Jews might have fought back instead of getting rounded up and sent to camps....

How many guns did he take away from Jews?

 

[EMH]

How many guns did he take away from Jews?

Just one, rightwinger's....

Since Jews in America are absolutely obsessed with taking Americans' guns away, surely they never really owned any, and don't have any now...

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is not hard to teach almost anyone the safe way to handle firearms.
Historically 10 years olds have been safe with gun access, since we did not have gun safes 100 years ago.
But as long as there are adults around, then kids don't need to exercise their 2nd amendment right.
But you also have it all wrong.
The Constitution does not at all create or grant ANY rights at all.
It merely tries to satisfy fears that individuals rightly had that a federal government would abuse rights.
So the Bill of Rights is actually just jurisdiction restrictions against the federal authority.

Kids don't have a second amendment right.

Kids have limited rights at best, they have limited responsibilities.

 

[Rigby5]

Since I am far left, progressive, liberal, it pains me to see you on the wrong side of the firearm issue.
Don't you see from history, that before the general population had good firearm access, that dictatorships had total control.
It is only an armed population that finally allow us to rebel and created republics.
First France and then the American Colonies.

What gun control basically is claiming is that the general population is so criminal or emotional that they can not handle themselves and will commit murder if given any freedom.
Don't you see how dangerous and wrong that is?
That essentially is promoting preventive detention.
Turn the whole society into a prison camp.

 

[Rigby5]

Kids don't have a second amendment right.

Kids have limited rights at best, they have limited responsibilities.

True.
But in Alaska backcountry, where there are lots of bears, etc., there likely are times when kids do need firearms access as well.

 

[frigidweirdo]

True.
But in Alaska backcountry, where there are lots of bears, etc., there likely are times when kids do need firearms access as well.

Sure, people get mixed up between rights and what you're allowed to do. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do.

The right means the govt can't stop you. Being allowed means they can stop you, they just haven't.

 

[Billy000]

It is not hard to teach almost anyone the safe way to handle firearms.
Historically 10 years olds have been safe with gun access, since we did not have gun safes 100 years ago.
But as long as there are adults around, then kids don't need to exercise their 2nd amendment right.
But you also have it all wrong.
The Constitution does not at all create or grant ANY rights at all.
It merely tries to satisfy fears that individuals rightly had that a federal government would abuse rights.
So the Bill of Rights is actually just jurisdiction restrictions against the federal authority.

Oh the bill of rights doesn’t give rights huh? Let’s pretend everything you’re saying is true. How do you justify any form of gun control is unconstitutional? What are you basing that on?

You can’t just cherry pick the situations where kids learn gun safety and ignore the instances where they receive no gun safety instructions at all. Like what point are you even trying to make by ignoring that?

 

[Rigby5]

Sure, people get mixed up between rights and what you're allowed to do. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do.

The right means the govt can't stop you. Being allowed means they can stop you, they just haven't.

There is very little government should do, and it mostly is to protect between conflicts of rights.
When something harms no one, like a child grabbing a gun for defense, or adults who do drugs, then government has no one to delegate any authority to them because no one else is harmed.

With the 2nd amendment, it has nothing to do with rights.
It is a statement of jurisdiction, and that the feds were to have NO jurisdiction at all over firearms.
The reason stated is obvious.
If the federal government ever restricted firearms in any way, then if the country was ever attacked, there would not be armed citizen soldiers to save us, and we would lose.
The way we do it now, with mercenary soldiers, is even worse.
That is because a mercenary army does what those who sign the paychecks tell them to do, not what is legal or rights.
It ensures a dictatorship.

 

[Rigby5]

Oh the bill of rights doesn’t give rights huh? Let’s pretend everything you’re saying is true. How do you justify any form of gun control is unconstitutional? What are you basing that on?

You can’t just cherry pick the situations where kids learn gun safety and ignore the instances where they receive no gun safety instructions at all. Like what point are you even trying to make by ignoring that?

You have it backwards.
Rights are infinite, so can never be listed, and have to exist FIRST, before you can have a rebellion, draw up a constitution, create a government, etc.
Read the Declaration of Independence.
{...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
...}

Obviously all people have always know what "rights" were.
It is not hard. One has to just apply the Golden Rule, about what you would not want done to you.
No government can ever be allowed to grant rights, because anything "granted" arbitrarily and then as arbitrarily be rescinded.
And rights can neither be granted nor rescinded.

As far as kids, we as parents, have a responsibility to teach, but also to deny since kids are well known to not have perfect control or understanding.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is very little government should do, and it mostly is to protect between conflicts of rights.
When something harms no one, like a child grabbing a gun for defense, or adults who do drugs, then government has no one to delegate any authority to them because no one else is harmed.

With the 2nd amendment, it has nothing to do with rights.
It is a statement of jurisdiction, and that the feds were to have NO jurisdiction at all over firearms.
The reason stated is obvious.
If the federal government ever restricted firearms in any way, then if the country was ever attacked, there would not be armed citizen soldiers to save us, and we would lose.
The way we do it now, with mercenary soldiers, is even worse.
That is because a mercenary army does what those who sign the paychecks tell them to do, not what is legal or rights.
It ensures a dictatorship.

Things were different in the past. Do people need guns to stop the US from being attacked now? No...

 

[Billy000]

You have it backwards.
Rights are infinite, so can never be listed, and have to exist FIRST, before you can have a rebellion, draw up a constitution, create a government, etc.
Read the Declaration of Independence.
{...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
...}

Obviously all people have always know what "rights" were.
It is not hard. One has to just apply the Golden Rule, about what you would not want done to you.
No government can ever be allowed to grant rights, because anything "granted" arbitrarily and then as arbitrarily be rescinded.
And rights can neither be granted nor rescinded.

As far as kids, we as parents, have a responsibility to teach, but also to deny since kids are well known to not have perfect control or understanding.

Okay so is gun control constitutional or not?

Again you’re cherry picking people and situations and ignoring glaring contradictory information. Kids for the most part obviously never learn gun safety. In general that is true even if some kids do get taught it. That’s what makes it a stupid idea to give them guns.

 

[rightwinger]

While that is true, it is NOT ARs.
The most dangerous firearms are close range like that are pistols or even a pump shotgun.
With a pair of pistols, one can pop a magazine from one while still shooting the other.
A pair of pistols was the "assault weapon" of Civil War cavalry.
WWI trench warfare used the pump shotgun, the "trench sweeper", as the main assault weapon.

The AR family is the least dangerous firearm sold.
It is rarely used in any crime, and is intentionally designed to wound instead of kill, since that puts the maximum out of action in war.

Yet we rarely see a mass shooting using pistols

Their fantasy is built around an AR-15 with large capacity magazines

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet we rarely see a mass shooting using pistols

Their fantasy is built around an AR-15 with large capacity magazines

wrong again retard.

 

[hadit]

At the time the 1st Amendment was passed, the Founding Fathers understood the quill, ink and paper and standing on the street corner shouting to be "speech". Still want to do this?

 

[hadit]

Things were different in the past. Do people need guns to stop the US from being attacked now? No...

Many a nation has fallen to invaders that believed exactly that. Our military is not set up for truly defending our borders, it is set up to project power around the world. No, we have seen what can happen when the citizens of an invaded country have small arms and the will to fight. Have you forgotten?

 

[hadit]

Yet we rarely see a mass shooting using pistols

Their fantasy is built around an AR-15 with large capacity magazines

How many of them have you examined in your professional capacity as a psychiatrist?

 

[rightwinger]

How many of them have you examined in your professional capacity as a psychiatrist?

Doesn’t take a psychiatrist to see how many Mass Shooters use AR-15s

More Bad Ass than a pistol

 

[hadit]

Doesn’t take a psychiatrist to see how many Mass Shooters use AR-15s

More Bad Ass than a pistol

Yet handguns are still more lethal and kill more people. Don't black kids in Chicago count as much as white kids in Topeka?

 

[rightwinger]

Yet handguns are still more lethal and kill more people. Don't black kids in Chicago count as much as white kids in Topeka?

Agree…we need to do more about controlling access to handguns
But AR-15s is a good start

 

[hadit]

Agree…we need to do more about controlling access to handguns
But AR-15s is a good start

Not really, because you're feeding the idea that you care more about splashy, sensational cases of white kids getting killed than you do about the stead loss of young black kids every single week. IOW, you're not going after something that might actually make a difference in the lives of more people. You know, like keeping violent repeat offenders off the streets.