[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

So where exactly are you getting the single shot musket thing?

You didn't answer my question. What do you think the purpose of the amendment is? Why was it written?

In the language of the times, a "well regulated militia" would be a trained, organized, group of armed men composed of the local population. It in no way refers to "regulation" in modern terms such as rules and whatnot in regards to what arms can and cannot be handled.

In the technology of the times, single shot muskets were effectively all that was available. The need to give attention to weapons technology did not exist.

The purpose of the amendment was to preserve people's ability to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a secure and safe society. Notice a distinct lack of the words "all" or "any". I think they were pretty smart guys too.

To your last point: are you arguing that militias of the time didn't have regulations?

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Umami

I can hear the wooshing sound of my point going over your head all the way over here.

Over my head? Really? You said that there are no natural born rights. I countered your statement by citing a sentence in the Preamble that effectively tells us of our natural born rights.

Originally Posted by Umami

Reading comprehension. An extreme outlier on nearly anything does not include the right to keep and bear arms. I was speaking generally.

Then please stop speaking generally and stay on point. The point being made in this thread is an upcoming bill to ban assault weapons. Stop speaking of "nearly anything" and keep it specifically to the possession/ownership of firearms.

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by Umami

In the technology of the times, single shot muskets were effectively all that was available. The need to give attention to weapons technology did not exist.

The purpose of the amendment was to preserve people's ability to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a secure and safe society. Notice a distinct lack of the words "all" or "any". I think they were pretty smart guys too.

To your last point: are you arguing that militias of the time didn't have regulations?

So you genuinely believe that metallic cartridge rifles are beyond the scope of the second amendment? On what do you base that?

You want to turn "well regulated" into "laws prohibiting possession of particular arms", which it isn't and you know that. You are being dishonest and it is rather silly. You are trying to "win" a stupid argument instead of understanding the subject. You have no interest in the actual intent of the amendment, you just want to make you position seem plausible.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

Over my head? Really? You said that there are no natural born rights. I countered your statement by citing a sentence in the Preamble that effectively tells us of our natural born rights.



Then please stop speaking generally and stay on point. The point being made in this thread is an upcoming bill to ban assault weapons. Stop speaking of "nearly anything" and keep it specifically to the possession/ownership of firearms.

You are missing his point. Unless the natural rights statement is respected and enforced, it holds no weight.

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

Over my head? Really? You said that there are no natural born rights. I countered your statement by citing a sentence in the Preamble that effectively tells us of our natural born rights.

edit: Iamamartianchurch answered it better than I did.

[PBOldTimer]

I absolutely agree with space pope on this one. There were never any laws that I'm aware of that regulated, in the times of the Revolution, what types of weapons or how many weapons a militia can possess.

[Volucris]

Originally Posted by Umami

In the technology of the times, single shot muskets were effectively all that was available. The need to give attention to weapons technology did not exist.

The purpose of the amendment was to preserve people's ability to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a secure and safe society. Notice a distinct lack of the words "all" or "any". I think they were pretty smart guys too.

To your last point: are you arguing that militias of the time didn't have regulations?

If a quantifier is not specified, you are entitled to read it as "all". This is a very basic lesson of logic. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be read as "the right of ALL people to keep and bear ALL arms". It cannot be read as "the right of some people to keep and bear some arms".

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

You are missing his point. Unless the natural rights statement is respected and enforced, it holds no weight.

Regrettably, the current Administration does not respect any natural born right.

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

So you genuinely believe that metallic cartridge rifles are beyond the scope of the second amendment? On what do you base that?

Nope. I believe metallic cartridge rifles should be subject to regulations.

Originally Posted by Space Pope

You want to turn "well regulated" into "laws prohibiting possession of particular arms", which it isn't and you know that.

Let me stop you there.

Originally Posted by Umami

edit: I want to be clear that I have no desire to prevent responsible citizens from gun ownership. I don't even care what kinds of guns you own, I like going to a range as much as the next guy.

Here's what I want. I would like to see regulations for safety equipment you are required to purchase/must be provided with the purchase of a firearm; mandated training before you can purchase a firearm; and the judicial pursuit of people who sell guns irresponsibly (I'm leaving this undefined to avoid getting caught up on details at the moment). It makes zero sense to me that you have to go through a full class and 6 months of training to drive a car, but can buy a gun knowing absolutely nothing about how to handle it.

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

I absolutely agree with space pope on this one. There were never any laws that I'm aware of that regulated, in the times of the Revolution, what types of weapons or how many weapons a militia can possess.

That's because there was effectively only one.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

Regrettably, the current Administration does not respect any natural born right.

So you admit your fault?

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

So you admit your fault?

Not at all. I recognize that the Obama Administration does not respect the rights of the people. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have rights.

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by Umami

Nope. I believe metallic cartridge rifles should be subject to regulations.


That's because there was only one.

You believe they were subject to regulation, sure, but on what basis does the federal government have to ignore the what is stated in the second amendment?

No. There were cannons, rockets, mines, volley guns, and other weapons as well.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

Not at all. I recognize that the Obama Administration does not respect the rights of the people. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have rights.

Wipe away the constitution and any memory of it. Are we born with rights? If yes, why.

[Volucris]

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

You believe they were subject to regulation, sure, but on what basis does the federal government have to ignore the what is stated in the second amendment?

You have yet to demonstrate that such a regulation would ignore the second amendment.

Originally Posted by Volucris

Smart man, but I don't really care about mass murder. It accounts for a vast minority of gun-related deaths in this country.

[Murph1329]

The US says it doesn't negotiate with terror but if you're a kid wanting attention all you have to do is shoot up your school and your actions will have the power to change the landscape of American politics forever. If you get a high enough score you might be able to abolish the 2nd amendment.

People will always give up their rights when fear sets in, the problem is you'll never get it back.

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Wipe away the constitution and any memory of it. Are we born with rights? If yes, why.

Yes, because nature dictates so. If an animal attacks another animal, doesn't the animal being attacked have a natural born right to defend itself? By the same token, so do we have a natural born right to defend ourselves. No paper nor parchment need bestow that right upon us, we are simply born with it.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

Yes, because nature dictates so. If an animal attacks another animal, doesn't the animal being attacked have a natural born right to defend itself? By the same token, so do we have a natural born right to defend ourselves. No paper nor parchment need to bestow that right upon us, we are simply born with it.

You are conflating ability with "right."

Confusing your argument even further, an animal cannot have the right to life when its death is absolutely required for other animals to live.

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

You are conflating ability with "right."

Confusing your argument even further, an animal cannot have the right to life when its death is absolutely required for other animals to live.

On what do you base that? Why does the prey have no right to life simply because something else wants to eat it?

[Volucris]

Animals have a right to life. We simply choose to violate it.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

On what do you base that? Why does the prey have no right to life simply because something else wants to eat it?

Logic. Lion must eat to stay alive. Antelope must also eat to survive. The lion's right to live and the Antelope's right to live is either contradictory or they cancel each other out. Hence ability.