why that was nice

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

I would actually argue against screening of any kind because clearly screening or background checks would be infringing upon my rights by creating an artificial barrier to keeping and bearing arms.

right so your arguing we should have biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction for sale, and all you have do to is show up and pay for them.

Then someone who is delusional, crazy, or someone who just plain hates America, buys a few, and then blows up the White House while taking a tour. Or they blow up a major port or airport. Or they blow up a sports arena when 40,000-100,000 people are inside one.

No biggie right?

 

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

Actually if you reread the analogy i posted that part is covered:
If you found a clause in a will that read: "my nephew Charlie, being a good egg, is to inherit my entire estate." The part about Charlie being a "good egg" explains his uncle's motive; it has no effect either way on the fact that Charlie gets all the money. It would not help to argue that, since his uncle died, Charlie has revealed himself to be a lout.

Likewise, these words-"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"-are not mysterious. If you find them opaque, here is a clue: they mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You need to go back and understand what the Founding Fathers thought a militia meant.

It has nothing to do with Charlie, or his chocolate factory.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Actually if you reread the analogy i posted that part is covered:
If you found a clause in a will that read: "my nephew Charlie, being a good egg, is to inherit my entire estate." The part about Charlie being a "good egg" explains his uncle's motive; it has no effect either way on the fact that Charlie gets all the money. It would not help to argue that, since his uncle died, Charlie has revealed himself to be a lout.

Likewise, these words-"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"-are not mysterious. If you find them opaque, here is a clue: they mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

i think the argument is being brought from 2 different ways. you are articulating yours from a postition of what it means in 2007. i'm bringing mine from what it meant in 1789. it should probably be ammended and re-worded to reflect the changes in culture and technology during that time span.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

right so your arguing we should have biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction for sale, and all you have do to is show up and pay for them.
Then someone who is delusional, crazy, or someone who just plain hates America, buys a few, and then blows up the White House while taking a tour. Or they blow up a major port or airport. Or they blow up a sports arena when 40,000-100,000 people are inside one.

No biggie right?

Someone could have just as easily bought a cannon and blown up the White House but it never happened.

An arsonist could have purposely burned it down.

Should we ban fire?

 

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

Someone could have just as easily bought a cannon and blown up the White House but it never happened.
An arsonist could have purposely burned it down.

Should we ban fire?

No, we should give everyone in DC some matches and hope we get lucky!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

right so your arguing we should have biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction for sale, and all you have do to is show up and pay for them.
Then someone who is delusional, crazy, or someone who just plain hates America, buys a few, and then blows up the White House while taking a tour. Or they blow up a major port or airport. Or they blow up a sports arena when 40,000-100,000 people are inside one.

No biggie right?

i don't see that argument. i see someone putting holes in the 2nd ammendment regarding the changes in culture and technology.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Someone could have just as easily bought a cannon and blown up the White House but it never happened.
An arsonist could have purposely burned it down.

Should we ban fire?

cannons in 1789 didn't blow up on impact. your point is still taken.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

Someone could have just as easily bought a cannon and blown up the White House but it never happened.
An arsonist could have purposely burned it down.

Should we ban fire?

You can't run onto the white house lawn with a torch or throw a molotov cocktail into the window. They'll put it out with a fire extinguisher or have 2 different fire engines race to put it out.

You can't wheel up a cannon across the street and shoot at the white house without people noticing you. And your not going to blow up the whole white house with one shot, which is all you can get.

You can buy a nuclear warhead, put it into a car, drive up to the side on the street and detonate it, destroying the white house along with most of Washington D.C.

It's not like the white house is the presidents home. There are hundreds of people inside it working every day, and one room on fire or one cannon ball wont derail the government.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You need to go back and understand what the Founding Fathers thought a militia meant.
It has nothing to do with Charlie, or his chocolate factory.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

you are missing the point completely, and frankly i expected more from you.

I completely understand that during the founding, and thereafter, individuals kept weaponry in order to be quickly called into militia service for what might be comparable to the national guards today.

I will repeat myself:

the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are not limiting in any logical sense. They explain why the right to bear arms is a good idea and how it is related to security and liberty. But they put no conditions upon the right that follows.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

Someone could have just as easily bought a cannon and blown up the White House but it never happened.
An arsonist could have purposely burned it down.

Should we ban fire?

actually, in that sense, we have banned fire. You can't light someones house on fire without consequences, you can't torch a car because you feel like it.

The same thing applies to guns. You can own them, but you can't shoot anyone of the street without getting arrested. You can't buy a WMD and destroy your town because your neighbors didn't give you christmas cookies this year.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

actually, in that sense, we have banned fire. You can't light someones house on fire without consequences, you can't torch a car because you feel like it.
The same thing applies to guns. You can own them, but you can't shoot anyone of the street without getting arrested. You can't buy a WMD and destroy your town because your neighbors didn't give you christmas cookies this year.

noone is arguing the legality of killing people and arson. the argument is directly related to the right to bear arms, not to use them in the commission of a crime.

 

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

you are missing the point completely, and frankly i expected more from you.
I completely understand that during the founding, and thereafter, individuals kept weaponry in order to be quickly called into militia service for what might be comparable to the national guards today.

I will repeat myself:

the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are not limiting in any logical sense. They explain why the right to bear arms is a good idea and how it is related to security and liberty. But they put no conditions upon the right that follows.

If the original purpose is no longer valid, the following right can also be considered no longer valid.

Now if you could get 26 states (for a majority) to reauthorise standing militias you might have a point that the following right remains, but we both know thats not going to happen.

As I said before, Im not against maintaining the Second Amendment, but Im pointing out where its legally arcane, and subject to interpretation by many people.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You can't run onto the white house lawn with a torch or throw a molotov cocktail into the window. They'll put it out with a fire extinguisher or have 2 different fire engines race to put it out.

What sort of fire extinguishers did they have in 1776?

You can't wheel up a cannon across the street and shoot at the white house without people noticing you. And your not going to blow up the whole white house with one shot, which is all you can get.

I'm quite sure that security in 1776 wasn't nearly as tight as it is today, and you probably could have moved a cannon close enough in the dead of a dark night to hit the White House. Starting a fire in the ensuing commotion would certainly have destroyed the building.

It's not like the white house is the presidents home. There are hundreds of people inside it working every day, and one room on fire or one cannon ball wont derail the government.

Your point was that the weaponry today is so much catastrophic, and my point is that everything was on a smaller scale back then and their weaponry could have done done a fairly proportional amount of damage.

 

[konechiwa 10+ year member]

What sort of fire extinguishers did they have in 1776?

I'm quite sure that security in 1776 wasn't nearly as tight as it is today, and you probably could have moved a cannon close enough in the dead of a dark night to hit the White House. Starting a fire in the ensuing commotion would certainly have destroyed the building.

Your point was that the weaponry today is so much catastrophic, and my point is that everything was on a smaller scale back then and their weaponry could have done done a fairly proportional amount of damage.

We didn't have a white house in 1776.

We didn't even have a president in 1776.

and btw, the first fire extinguisher was patented in 1729.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

If the original purpose is no longer valid, the following right can also be considered no longer valid.

That is not what it says.

The first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are not limiting in any logical sense. They explain why the right to bear arms is a good idea and how it is related to security and liberty. But they put no conditions upon the right that follows.