ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit - Page 23

Humerox · #1 01-21-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side.

Yeah...fucking uncanny isn't it? Not that we'd need interpretation or definition for clarification...right?

Talk about making my fucking arguments for me, lol.

Resheph · #2 01-21-2013, 02:14 PM

As an aside, the original intent of free speech was to allow citizens to speak out against their government without fear of reprisal. Following this thought process led to the laws stated preventing certain types of speech from being 'free'.

Bringing up free speech only hurts the pro-gun crowd because if speech can be censored (within reason) without specifics being in the Constitution, guns can also be limited in the same manner. The catch with gun control is that you simply cannot fight the US military if the soldiers do as commanded. You let loose a few RPGs and they carpetbomb your town. It's not even a contest.

Humerox · #3 01-21-2013, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resheph [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As an aside, the original intent of free speech was to allow citizens to speak out against their government without fear of reprisal. Following this thought process led to the laws stated preventing certain types of speech from being 'free'.

Bringing up free speech only hurts the pro-gun crowd because if speech can be censored (within reason) without specifics being in the Constitution, guns can also be limited in the same manner. The catch with gun control is that you simply cannot fight the US military if the soldiers do as commanded. You let loose a few RPGs and they carpetbomb your town. It's not even a contest.

Well said.

Resheph · #4 01-21-2013, 02:36 PM

OK, I'm going back to work. Auto, no idea who you are in-game and I'm not going to avoid you or anything, but talking to you here is not unlike smashing my face into a concrete floor, painful and completely pointless.

Lexical · #5 01-21-2013, 04:41 PM

Lexical · #6 01-21-2013, 04:47 PM

Reality according to Humerox: 500+ shot and injured, 4 dead is NOT a mass shooting.

Vellatri · #7 01-21-2013, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have.

I already did, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No one has crushed anything, lol.

I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Val should probably take a look at it.

Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?

I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.

Humerox · #8 01-21-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I already did, though.

I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.

Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.

I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.

Ok...lets first address the ratification business. It doesn't require state ratification to interpret the constitution...it does to amend it, yes. But we're not talking about amending it. We're talking about the fact that since the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the right to bear arms WAS an individual right (up until then the Supreme Court leaned toward the fact that it was as a militia) we don't really know what it means.

We know that if we apply it with an understanding that they mean militia, then we can expect it to mean whatever a modern militia would use.

The problem is also that people totally ignore A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does that part really mean if the right to bear arms is an individual right? Wouldn't the founding fathers have said simply that 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'? They made it awfully difficult to understand when that other part is in there.

Does that also mean that if you own arms, that you are required to be on call to a militia and bear them in defense? No one is addressing that, either. It's a pertinent question since the framers specifically included the militia in the Second Amendment.

Let me look for that study. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Vellatri · #9 01-21-2013, 06:07 PM

I addressed this already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is also that people totally ignore A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course not. I never ignored it. I used it to justify the obvious fact that "arms" actually means "arms." That the prefatory clause outlines the reason for the operational clause, it is the "why" not the "what". It explains that an armed and well-trained populace is necessary to keep the state free. This clearly shows that the people are supposed to have access to the same arms as the government, which is of, by, and for the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does that also mean that if you own arms, that you are required to be on call to a militia and bear them in defense?

Of course not. The Constitution doesn't say any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But we're not talking about amending it.

Until we do, the people have the legal right to any arms they please.

Humerox · #10 01-21-2013, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I addressed this already.

Of course not. I never ignored it. I used it to justify the obvious fact that "arms" actually means "arms." That the prefatory clause outlines the reason for the operational clause, it is the "why" not the "what". It explains that an armed and well-trained populace is necessary to keep the state free. This clearly shows that the people are supposed to have access to the same arms as the government, which is of, by, and for the people.

Who is the populace supposed to be trained by? Wouldn't that mean any Jim Bob Bo Henry with a gun is supposed to receive training? If so by whom and what for?

Of course not. The Constitution doesn't say any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Until we do, the people have the legal right to any arms they please.

But they don't. Why is that? And IF they did...why aren't they fighting for that...since their rights have already been infringed?