The Second Amendment is NOT UNLIMITED ... why?

[sudden valley gunner]

As I used to tell my students (the mature ones got it, the immature ones did not), it may not be your fault, but it is still your responsibility. Too many people think fault and responsibility are the same thing.

I hold everyone in Japan at the time responsible for what their nation did. If they so disliked what their government did in the name of the nation of which they were a part, then they should have done all they could to resist or they should have gotten out. They tacitly accepted what their government did and bear the responsibility. Screw 'em.

If you have to go through civilians from a warring nation to stop the war-makers, so be it. Be slow to go to war, but fast to do whatever it takes against the enemy entity to win it.

I call bull. That is collectivist thinking, individuals are not responsible for the actions of others.

 

[eye95]

You call "bull" on an opinion??? How arrogant. How about disagreeing with it rather than elevating YOUR opinion by calling those you disagree with "bull" (false). Call bull on false facts, not opinions with which you disagree.

And, frankly, I don't care whether you agree. I am not trying to change your mind. I am putting fodder out there for those thinking this through.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[mikeyb]

I call bull. That is collectivist thinking, individuals are not responsible for the actions of others.

We are somewhat responsible- if we voted for- when it's an elected official that goes off the reservation. It's our duty to elect people that will uphold the office with integrity and the best interests of the people and nation (I know, very ideological, but ultimately, that's what we want, right?).

I do not accept responsibility for anything that happened before my time, nor the transgressions of our elected officials I neither voted for nor endorsed.


But back on topic...
My saying is "a person is smart, people are dumb." If you allow the general populace equal access to weapons and machines of war as the government, you will reign down a s**tstorm of grief so fast, you'll be glad the nuclear winter will kill you soon enough.

We have a hard enough time keeping guns from criminals. Let's be honest: we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's logistically impossible to do this without locking down the general public. Do you think it would be easier or harder for a criminal to obtain worse weapons if they were available? Do you think criminals would target worse-weapons of war? Do you think the handful of successful and legal-but-integrity-less people would purchase the worse-weapons and sell them to unscrupulous people, taking the money and running to a private, non-extradition country/island?

Imagine the wrath of some woman who is driving a tank, who goes through a drive-thru and finds out there's no chicken nuggets left. A scout leader who trips over a stump while carrying a loaded RPG, who ends up killing the troop, and himself, with his mistake. Screwing up with a gun usually affects one person directly. Worse-weapons of war will impact many more. While I'm not opposed to thinning the herd, I am against it when my color-blind neighbor makes his First Dirty Bomb from a Harbor Freight mail-order kit.

There is no benefit to the general populace to own worse-weapons of war other than to have an equal d**k-measuring contest with the government. The risks greatly outweigh the reward.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I call bull. That is collectivist thinking, individuals are not responsible for the actions of others.

Yeah, what does he think people should do ... needs to be more specific if he wishes to win me over.

Generalized statements have no merit, generally speaking.

 

[Primus]

We are somewhat responsible- if we voted for- when it's an elected official that goes off the reservation. It's our duty to elect people that will uphold the office with integrity and the best interests of the people and nation (I know, very ideological, but ultimately, that's what we want, right?).

I do not accept responsibility for anything that happened before my time, nor the transgressions of our elected officials I neither voted for nor endorsed.


But back on topic...
My saying is "a person is smart, people are dumb." If you allow the general populace equal access to weapons and machines of war as the government, you will reign down a s**tstorm of grief so fast, you'll be glad the nuclear winter will kill you soon enough.

We have a hard enough time keeping guns from criminals. Let's be honest: we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's logistically impossible to do this without locking down the general public. Do you think it would be easier or harder for a criminal to obtain worse weapons if they were available? Do you think criminals would target worse-weapons of war? Do you think the handful of successful and legal-but-integrity-less people would purchase the worse-weapons and sell them to unscrupulous people, taking the money and running to a private, non-extradition country/island?

Imagine the wrath of some woman who is driving a tank, who goes through a drive-thru and finds out there's no chicken nuggets left. A scout leader who trips over a stump while carrying a loaded RPG, who ends up killing the troop, and himself, with his mistake. Screwing up with a gun usually affects one person directly. Worse-weapons of war will impact many more. While I'm not opposed to thinning the herd, I am against it when my color-blind neighbor makes his First Dirty Bomb from a Harbor Freight mail-order kit.

There is no benefit to the general populace to own worse-weapons of war other than to have an equal d**k-measuring contest with the government. The risks greatly outweigh the reward.

+1

 

[77zach]

But back on topic...
My saying is "a person is smart, people are dumb." If you allow the general populace equal access to weapons and machines of war as the government, you will reign down a s**tstorm of grief so fast, you'll be glad the nuclear winter will kill you soon enough.

We have a hard enough time keeping guns from criminals. Let's be honest: we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's logistically impossible to do this without locking down the general public. Do you think it would be easier or harder for a criminal to obtain worse weapons if they were available? Do you think criminals would target worse-weapons of war? Do you think the handful of successful and legal-but-integrity-less people would purchase the worse-weapons and sell them to unscrupulous people, taking the money and running to a private, non-extradition country/island?

Imagine the wrath of some woman who is driving a tank, who goes through a drive-thru and finds out there's no chicken nuggets left. A scout leader who trips over a stump while carrying a loaded RPG, who ends up killing the troop, and himself, with his mistake. Screwing up with a gun usually affects one person directly. Worse-weapons of war will impact many more. While I'm not opposed to thinning the herd, I am against it when my color-blind neighbor makes his First Dirty Bomb from a Harbor Freight mail-order kit.

There is no benefit to the general populace to own worse-weapons of war other than to have an equal d**k-measuring contest with the government. The risks greatly outweigh the reward.

Only governments can develop nukes and other wmd's. Individuals would not possess them. Government is made up of the worst of humanity and cannot be tru sted as a cursory look at history shows. We already allow the most dangerous people to have engines of war without question.

 

[mikeyb]

Only governments can develop nukes and other wmd's. Individuals would not possess them. Government is made up of the worst of humanity and cannot be tru sted as a cursory look at history shows. We already allow the most dangerous people to have engines of war without question.

Wow. If that's not the broadest, most myopic brush, I don't know what is. :uhoh:

 

[eye95]

Yeah, what does he think people should do ... needs to be more specific if he wishes to win me over.

Generalized statements have no merit, generally speaking.

Why would I want to win you over? I don't care what idiotic trolls think.

 

[georg jetson]

No. False. Wrong.

The term "arms" is referring to any weapon capable of being carried by the arm. In common usage, a weapon that is an extension of your physical capability. Anthropologically, look at the progression of "arms": Arm/fist, stick, bone, rock, sling shot, bow and arrow, knife, sword, guns. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the word "arms" was used to not limit defensive weapons to "firearms" as there may be future technology not thought of in the 1700's (rail gun technology, for example), but specifically exclude engines of wars like catapults and trebuchets.

...and your evidence of this is? Show me where the fed gov was given the authority to define "arms"?

If the FF meant to include all weapons or engines of war, they would have phrased it that way.

They did. They insisted that the fed gov have NO authority to regulate the keeping or bearing of arms. They further kept the authority to define those terms from the fed gov.

To believe the 2A includes nukes, cannons, tanks, battleships, etc., is completely preposterous. There is absolutely no compelling argument or evidence that "arms" is to include nukes, tanks, etc.

What is preposterous is to include an amendment to a constitution meant to preserve liberty without providing for the citizens to have weapons at LEAST equal to the fed gov. There is NO compelling argument that the fed gov was given authority to regulate ANY arm.

I repeat - Show me where the fed gov was given the authority to define "arms".

 

[georg jetson]

Wow. If that's not the broadest, most myopic brush, I don't know what is. :uhoh:

That may be the case, but it was the mindset of those creating a republic(FF) with checks and balances in order to slow down the inevitable consolidation of power due to greed.

 

[mikeyb]

...and your evidence of this is? Show me where the fed gov was given the authority to define "arms"?



They did. They insisted that the fed gov have NO authority to regulate the keeping or bearing of arms. They further kept the authority to define those terms from the fed gov.



What is preposterous is to include an amendment to a constitution meant to preserve liberty without providing for the citizens to have weapons at LEAST equal to the fed gov. There is NO compelling argument that the fed gov was given authority to regulate ANY arm.

I repeat - Show me where the fed gov was given the authority to define "arms".

Article III.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Only governments can develop nukes and other wmd's. Individuals would not possess them. Government is made up of the worst of humanity and cannot be tru sted as a cursory look at history shows. We already allow the most dangerous people to have engines of war without question.

Nuclear technology is about 70 years old ... not that difficult to produce a device ... issue is with gathering material

And other WMDs are easy compared to nukes..developing and manufacturing ..

 

[Primus]

...and your evidence of this is? Show me where the fed gov was given the authority to define "arms"?



They did. They insisted that the fed gov have NO authority to regulate the keeping or bearing of arms. They further kept the authority to define those terms from the fed gov.



What is preposterous is to include an amendment to a constitution meant to preserve liberty without providing for the citizens to have weapons at LEAST equal to the fed gov. There is NO compelling argument that the fed gov was given authority to regulate ANY arm.

I repeat - Show me where the fed gov was given the authority to define "arms".

The fed gov was given the authority to define terms and regulate firearms in the Con. itself. The Con. sets up the three branches to include the SCOTUS which ruled that there can be restrictions on guns. That certain people can be banned and certain places can be off limits to carrying.

Everyone is quick to read the 15 or so words in the 2a because they like them, but they conveniently forget the other couple hundred that make up the documnt and spells out how the .gov has banned or licensed us, or anything else guys are quick to say "unconstitutional!!!!".

The Constitution says, if its passed by Congress, signed by President, then upheld by the SCOTUS... then it's good to go. Period. And they have all agreed that dudes (to include LE) cannot park a tank in your driveway or OC a rpg on your back to make a statement.

 

[Primus]

And guys tote the "we should have anything the .gov has to defend our freedoms from tyranical .gov"

News flash: An ar with a 30 rd mg is no going to save you from an FA-18, JDAMS, Bunker Busters, Apaches, Black hawks, Opsreys, Nuclear powered submarines, aircraft carries, destroyers that launch tomahawks, M1a1 Abrams, Bradleys (my favorites), MRAPS, Strykers (to include the ones with the cannon turret), .50 M2s, M240gs etc. etc.

Oh and ninjas.

So unless you can look at me with a straight face (you can't over the internet) and tell me you think that ANYONE and EVERYONE in the whole country should get issued each and every one of the things I mentioned (just a fraction of the real power of the .gov) then your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[davidmcbeth]

And guys tote the "we should have anything the .gov has to defend our freedoms from tyranical .gov"

News flash: An ar with a 30 rd mg is no going to save you from an FA-18, JDAMS, Bunker Busters, Apaches, Black hawks, Opsreys, Nuclear powered submarines, aircraft carries, destroyers that launch tomahawks, M1a1 Abrams, Bradleys (my favorites), MRAPS, Strykers (to include the ones with the cannon turret), .50 M2s, M240gs etc. etc.

Oh and ninjas.

So unless you can look at me with a straight face (you can't over the internet) and tell me you think that ANYONE and EVERYONE in the whole country should get issued each and every one of the things I mentioned (just a fraction of the real power of the .gov) then your argument doesn't hold water.

But with an AR, it can help me steal a FA-18 .... the argument that people with small arms cannot win against a well equipped army has been proven time and time again to be a false argument. Chairman Mao started out with a bunch a farmers who had pitchforks. And if it was true, no revolution would have ever been successful.

 

[OC for ME]

I do not need to have 'X'. I only need to deprive the enemy other ability to use that which I do not have, nor want. All that mechanized stuff needs real estate and folks to maintain them. A few liberty minded souls can seriously impact a overwhelmingly "superior" force.

We did it once a couple of hundred years ago. My AR and pistols can be a force equalizer if employed properly. But, if I do get a tank, via lawful means, I should be able to "bear" it as I see fit.....lawfully that is.

 

[ron73440]

And guys tote the "we should have anything the .gov has to defend our freedoms from tyranical .gov"

News flash: An ar with a 30 rd mg is no going to save you from an FA-18, JDAMS, Bunker Busters, Apaches, Black hawks, Opsreys, Nuclear powered submarines, aircraft carries, destroyers that launch tomahawks, M1a1 Abrams, Bradleys (my favorites), MRAPS, Strykers (to include the ones with the cannon turret), .50 M2s, M240gs etc. etc.

Oh and ninjas.

So unless you can look at me with a straight face (you can't over the internet) and tell me you think that ANYONE and EVERYONE in the whole country should get issued each and every one of the things I mentioned (just a fraction of the real power of the .gov) then your argument doesn't hold water.

So you can look at me with a straight face and say no members of the military would cross over and bring weapons with?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You call "bull" on an opinion??? How arrogant. How about disagreeing with it rather than elevating YOUR opinion by calling those you disagree with "bull" (false). Call bull on false facts, not opinions with which you disagree.

And, frankly, I don't care whether you agree. I am not trying to change your mind. I am putting fodder out there for those thinking this through.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

You didn't present it as just an opinion, and then used ad hominem that only mature people "get it" while everyone else who disagrees with your "opinion" as immature. Straw/Rafter.

You use this rationalization to justify the slaughter of innocents in war.....that is Bull, and it is bull that I am responsible for Obama's war crimes or for Bush's.

Now your reply is ironic, that you are just tryingn to put this out there for "those thinking this through", again this is more than just your "opinion" this is a adhominem attack that those who don't agree with you are not thinking it through.

Stop being so sensitive, if it isn't bull tell me why it isn't bull.

 

[eye95]

I do not need to have 'X'. I only need to deprive the enemy other ability to use that which I do not have, nor want. All that mechanized stuff needs real estate and folks to maintain them. A few liberty minded souls can seriously impact a overwhelmingly "superior" force.

We did it once a couple of hundred years ago. My AR and pistols can be a force equalizer if employed properly. But, if I do get a tank, via lawful means, I should be able to "bear" it as I see fit.....lawfully that is.

All successful revolutions have used that theory. When large enough numbers of people, including some of those in the employ of the tyrants, decide to wrest power from the tyrants, they will use the arms they have to take armaments from the tyrants and either deprive the tyrants of the ability to use them or to use those armaments themselves on the tyrants or, actually, both.

[As to the other poster, I have moved on from his sty. I choose not to wrestle that particular pig.]

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We are somewhat responsible- if we voted for- when it's an elected official that goes off the reservation. It's our duty to elect people that will uphold the office with integrity and the best interests of the people and nation (I know, very ideological, but ultimately, that's what we want, right?).

I do not accept responsibility for anything that happened before my time, nor the transgressions of our elected officials I neither voted for nor endorsed.

You may have a point about if it's the person we endorsed, it still wouldn't justify the slaughter of innocent civilians because they voted unless you have evidence the specific voters wanted the leaders to commit atrocities.

Ideologically that's great, but that isn't what happens, by the rationalization of some it would be perfectly justifiable that a middle eastern country nuke New York because hey after all their leader Obama is killing their children with drones.

I too don't accept responsibility for anything that happened before my timer, nor the transgressions of elected officials ( I won't say our because they are not mine), irregardless of whether or not I voted for them. This wasn't the argument put forth though, the argument was that everyone in Japan was responsible for the actions of the tyrants that ruled them, I call bull on that, just as I wouldn't say Eye is responsible for the actions of Obama, even though he voted and his guy lost he gave the illusion of consent to the two party system that elected him.

But back on topic...
My saying is "a person is smart, people are dumb." If you allow the general populace equal access to weapons and machines of war as the government, you will reign down a s**tstorm of grief so fast, you'll be glad the nuclear winter will kill you soon enough.

We have a hard enough time keeping guns from criminals. Let's be honest: we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's logistically impossible to do this without locking down the general public. Do you think it would be easier or harder for a criminal to obtain worse weapons if they were available? Do you think criminals would target worse-weapons of war? Do you think the handful of successful and legal-but-integrity-less people would purchase the worse-weapons and sell them to unscrupulous people, taking the money and running to a private, non-extradition country/island?

Imagine the wrath of some woman who is driving a tank, who goes through a drive-thru and finds out there's no chicken nuggets left. A scout leader who trips over a stump while carrying a loaded RPG, who ends up killing the troop, and himself, with his mistake. Screwing up with a gun usually affects one person directly. Worse-weapons of war will impact many more. While I'm not opposed to thinning the herd, I am against it when my color-blind neighbor makes his First Dirty Bomb from a Harbor Freight mail-order kit.

There is no benefit to the general populace to own worse-weapons of war other than to have an equal d**k-measuring contest with the government. The risks greatly outweigh the reward.

Emotive, vivid misleading. Same type of arguments the anti's use for guns.