Why do the God-haters persist?

[Newby]

The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.

I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.

On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs ....

Fill in the blank. A private citizen doesn't 'need' a lot of things, but it's not for the government to decide what a citizen should need or not, it's up to the PRIVATE citizen to determine their own needs and fulfill them. And it's not anyone ele's business as long as laws are not broken.

Do you need sugar? It's just bad for you..
Do you need ciggies? Nah, they just cause everyone else to pay higher insurance...
Do you need a truck? Nope, uses too much fuel, creates carbon emissions, etc..
Do you need a house greater than 1000 sq. ft.? Nope, big home use too much energy..

And on and on and on...

 

[orogenicman]

I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.

On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.

Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs ....

Fill in the blank. A private citizen doesn't 'need' a lot of things, but it's not for the government to decide what a citizen should need or not, it's up to the PRIVATE citizen to determine their own needs and fulfill them. And it's not anyone ele's business as long as laws are not broken.

Do you need sugar? It's just bad for you..
Do you need ciggies? Nah, they just cause everyone else to pay higher insurance...
Do you need a truck? Nope, uses too much fuel, creates carbon emissions, etc..
Do you need a house greater than 1000 sq. ft.? Nope, big home use too much energy..

And on and on and on...

If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.

 

[Boss]

You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.

LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?

 

[orogenicman]

So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.

Not buying it. That is why we have law enforcement, and the military. I submit that anyone who thinks that they need to a machine gun in order to be our saviors is the real threat. And for the record, no one asked me if I needed saving.

Don't care what you buy, to be honest.

For the record, my viewpoint regarding arguments made by John Locke and others in the Federalist Papers, gives the government limited power to restrict ownership of certain kinds of weaponry, such as machine guns, bombs, missiles, chemical and biological weapons and nukes. The key is the weapon's capacity to kill indiscriminately. We do not have that constitutional right as individuals.

That said, state militias should retain the right to arm themselves in any way the government is able to arm itself. One of the purposes of a state militia is to repel a possible rogue federal government. Hard to do that with pea shooters and pellet guns.

A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.

LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?

"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.

 

[Boss]

A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.

Well a slingshot and baseball bat have the potential to kill indiscriminately as well. The thing is, it takes an intentional act to make that happen. The other weapons mentioned can kill indiscriminately without intent to do so. Semi-automatic with 20-round cartridge does not have that capability, it requires intent.

The National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces. It is essentially State Militia under command of the US Department of Defense.

No one has argued that the Constitution says private militias have the right to overthrow the government. Where in the fuck do you come up with these mistranslations???

 

[Boss]

You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.

LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?

"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.

Wow... not seeing where I advocated anything at all.

 

[Boss]

If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.

I've already answered this. It's found in the Federalist Papers, argued by Mr. John Locke and others. We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.

 

[thebrucebeat]

LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?

"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.

Wow... not seeing where I advocated anything at all.

There are volumes of things you don't see about yourself.
Add one more.

 

[thebrucebeat]

If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.

I've already answered this. It's found in the Federalist Papers, argued by Mr. John Locke and others. We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.
Are you against them as well?
No background checks encourage the type of people that will kill indiscriminately.
Are you for them?

 

[orogenicman]

A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.

Well a slingshot and baseball bat have the potential to kill indiscriminately as well. The thing is, it takes an intentional act to make that happen. The other weapons mentioned can kill indiscriminately without intent to do so. Semi-automatic with 20-round cartridge does not have that capability, it requires intent.

33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

The National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces. It is essentially State Militia under command of the US Department of Defense.

No one has argued that the Constitution says private militias have the right to overthrow the government. Where in the fuck do you come up with these mistranslations???

"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.

By the way:

National Guard

The Guard dates back to 1636, when Citizen-Soldiers formed militias to defend community and country. And for 377 years, the Guard has stayed true to its roots.

 

[Montrovant]

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.

No, they're not. We The People are the final judge. Sorry!

Let me clarify. SCOTUS is the final organ of government to determine constitutionality.

 

[Montrovant]

A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.

Well a slingshot and baseball bat have the potential to kill indiscriminately as well. The thing is, it takes an intentional act to make that happen. The other weapons mentioned can kill indiscriminately without intent to do so. Semi-automatic with 20-round cartridge does not have that capability, it requires intent.

The National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces. It is essentially State Militia under command of the US Department of Defense.

No one has argued that the Constitution says private militias have the right to overthrow the government. Where in the fuck do you come up with these mistranslations???

I believe I understand your point, and in large part you are correct, but not entirely. Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent. A miss that hits a bystander. A ricochet. A bullet which continues on after traveling through the target. Even with a hand to hand type weapon it's possible, just much harder to do because of the limited range.

You seem to be trying to make an argument based on difference in type when what you are actually arguing is a difference in degree.

 

[BreezeWood]

If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.

I've already answered this. It's found in the Federalist Papers, argued by Mr. John Locke and others. We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.

Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".


so you agree:

Arms defined as lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity - is not an "infringement", according to "Mr. John Locke and others" due to the weapons accountability is Constitutional ... well, maybe you are not insane afterall.

.

 

[Boss]

Jeeesh... I've never seen a bunch so determine to hang something out of context just because it wasn't fully clarified. You guys are so freaking desperate to catch me in a snafu, you are literally foaming at the mouth to find something... anything... that you can manipulate into a misstatement.

33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.

You only have the right to DEFEND your life, property, freedom. Yes, any gun, knife or rock can kill someone indiscriminately if in the hands of someone who intends to kill someone indiscriminately. THAT is NOT what is being discussed or debated. We are talking specifically about a weapon being used in the defense of your property, life or freedom. Whether the weapon has the likelihood of harming an innocent bystander through no intention of the user. A nuke would obviously kill innocent people. A surface-to-air missile would obviously kill innocent people. A chemical or biological weapon... obviously, would kill innocent people who weren't intended targets of your defensive action. Dear Jesus... do I have to use more detailed and precise wording to get the point across to you people?

A machine gun is borderline. I included it because I believe they have 'very high probability' of indiscriminately killing someone who shouldn't be killed when they are used in defense. Any type of semi-automatic weapon does not have the likelihood of indiscriminately harming someone who you don't intend to harm in your defensive action. Yeah... it COULD happen.... probably it won't.

Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".

Not because the Federalist Papers say so, because that is the law of the land. I'm attempting to explain WHY that is the law of the land, the basis for WHY we have some degree of limitation on "bearing arms" in America. The argument is found in Federalist 46, 23, 27 and 29. We are allowed to bear arms, but not allowed to bear arms that are likely to indiscriminately kill innocent people when we use them in our defensive action. Like a nuclear bomb! Obviously, nuclear bombs were not argued or the issue raised in the Federalist Papers, but weapons like cannons were. The right to bear arms for self defense is weighted against the right of the innocent bystander to remain alive.

If you don't get it or understand it, I can't explain in any more detail than this. You'll need to go read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment. I've given you an overview, and if you don't believe me or think I am just blowing smoke up your ass, go find out for yourself. This isn't a game, there are no points to win by trying to twist and distort my context into something you can argue against. I gave you the benefit of my wisdom and you can take it or leave it.

 

[MrMax]

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Was it in your creator's plan that we should be shooting at each other? Even in our own countries? He must be one hell of a badass dude!!! I bet everyone is packing in heaven.

 

[Montrovant]

Jeeesh... I've never seen a bunch so determine to hang something out of context just because it wasn't fully clarified. You guys are so freaking desperate to catch me in a snafu, you are literally foaming at the mouth to find something... anything... that you can manipulate into a misstatement.

33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.

You only have the right to DEFEND your life, property, freedom. Yes, any gun, knife or rock can kill someone indiscriminately if in the hands of someone who intends to kill someone indiscriminately. THAT is NOT what is being discussed or debated. We are talking specifically about a weapon being used in the defense of your property, life or freedom. Whether the weapon has the likelihood of harming an innocent bystander through no intention of the user. A nuke would obviously kill innocent people. A surface-to-air missile would obviously kill innocent people. A chemical or biological weapon... obviously, would kill innocent people who weren't intended targets of your defensive action. Dear Jesus... do I have to use more detailed and precise wording to get the point across to you people?

A machine gun is borderline. I included it because I believe they have 'very high probability' of indiscriminately killing someone who shouldn't be killed when they are used in defense. Any type of semi-automatic weapon does not have the likelihood of indiscriminately harming someone who you don't intend to harm in your defensive action. Yeah... it COULD happen.... probably it won't.

Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".

Not because the Federalist Papers say so, because that is the law of the land. I'm attempting to explain WHY that is the law of the land, the basis for WHY we have some degree of limitation on "bearing arms" in America. The argument is found in Federalist 46, 23, 27 and 29. We are allowed to bear arms, but not allowed to bear arms that are likely to indiscriminately kill innocent people when we use them in our defensive action. Like a nuclear bomb! Obviously, nuclear bombs were not argued or the issue raised in the Federalist Papers, but weapons like cannons were. The right to bear arms for self defense is weighted against the right of the innocent bystander to remain alive.

If you don't get it or understand it, I can't explain in any more detail than this. You'll need to go read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment. I've given you an overview, and if you don't believe me or think I am just blowing smoke up your ass, go find out for yourself. This isn't a game, there are no points to win by trying to twist and distort my context into something you can argue against. I gave you the benefit of my wisdom and you can take it or leave it.

Again, there has to be an interpretation, a determination of how the founders intent jibes with modern weapons. Obviously the founders did not know the many forms that weaponry would take over the years. Would you agree that the SCOTUS must make that kind of determination when a relevant case comes before them?

As far as killing indiscriminately, the likelihood of such a thing is going to vary widely. The type of weapon is only one factor; the skill and experience of the user, the physical condition of the user, the number of attackers, the location of the attack, etc. all can have an effect on whether a weapon is likely to kill indiscriminately. Obviously a nuclear bomb is more likely to do so than a pistol, but given the right circumstances (firing in the middle of a large crowd, for example) a pistol has a pretty good chance of doing the same. Again, someone must make those kinds of judgements as the cases arise.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Jeeesh... I've never seen a bunch so determine to hang something out of context just because it wasn't fully clarified. You guys are so freaking desperate to catch me in a snafu, you are literally foaming at the mouth to find something... anything... that you can manipulate into a misstatement.

33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.

You only have the right to DEFEND your life, property, freedom. Yes, any gun, knife or rock can kill someone indiscriminately if in the hands of someone who intends to kill someone indiscriminately. THAT is NOT what is being discussed or debated. We are talking specifically about a weapon being used in the defense of your property, life or freedom. Whether the weapon has the likelihood of harming an innocent bystander through no intention of the user. A nuke would obviously kill innocent people. A surface-to-air missile would obviously kill innocent people. A chemical or biological weapon... obviously, would kill innocent people who weren't intended targets of your defensive action. Dear Jesus... do I have to use more detailed and precise wording to get the point across to you people?

A machine gun is borderline. I included it because I believe they have 'very high probability' of indiscriminately killing someone who shouldn't be killed when they are used in defense. Any type of semi-automatic weapon does not have the likelihood of indiscriminately harming someone who you don't intend to harm in your defensive action. Yeah... it COULD happen.... probably it won't.

Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".

Not because the Federalist Papers say so, because that is the law of the land. I'm attempting to explain WHY that is the law of the land, the basis for WHY we have some degree of limitation on "bearing arms" in America. The argument is found in Federalist 46, 23, 27 and 29. We are allowed to bear arms, but not allowed to bear arms that are likely to indiscriminately kill innocent people when we use them in our defensive action. Like a nuclear bomb! Obviously, nuclear bombs were not argued or the issue raised in the Federalist Papers, but weapons like cannons were. The right to bear arms for self defense is weighted against the right of the innocent bystander to remain alive.

If you don't get it or understand it, I can't explain in any more detail than this. You'll need to go read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment. I've given you an overview, and if you don't believe me or think I am just blowing smoke up your ass, go find out for yourself. This isn't a game, there are no points to win by trying to twist and distort my context into something you can argue against. I gave you the benefit of my wisdom and you can take it or leave it.

Your "wisdom" is a crock.
Those papers simply don't make the case you are suggesting. They all relate to a militia vs. a standing army.
Read them again, or for the first time.

 

[thanatos144]

A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.

.

And what "well regulated militia" is restricted to "lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity?" ...Switzerland?

in my opinion, a well regulated one (militia), the same as the Arms available to its citizenry.


we know Bossy, every Ukrainian should have an AK47 fully automatic rifle because they like you need unlimited firepower to defend themselves.

.

Bet they wish they did now with Russia invading them.

 

[thanatos144]

So the Gid haters lost the Debate on God so they derailed the thread to about Guns????? Pathetic.