A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Dammitboy! said:

How long have you been suffering from this paranoid delusion?

Wait - this is just more deflecting from the discussion right? You clever little minx!

Click to expand...

recognizing your tactics and your frustration hardly rises to the level of paranoia.

Federalist said:

Quite true. You never explicitly said a word about flintlocks. And now, for the benefit of the class, I'm going to do a little exercise. We call it logical reasoning.

Your position is that "to infringe", relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means only to completely destroy the right.

So how does one destroy the right to keep and bear arms? By completely preventing its exercise. As you have said before, if a person possesses a firearm, then they can be said to be enjoying their right to do so. Therefore, the possession of a firearm, any firearm at all, is evidence that the right to keep and bear arms has not been destroyed.

Therefore, (and watch carefully, because what we're doing here is what grown-ups call "logical reasoning"), if all guns are banned except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks, then people are still legally able to possess such firearms. A person in possession of such a firearm can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. If a person is enjoying a right, that right has not been destroyed. Therefore, per your definition of infringe, a complete ban on all firearms except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks is completely compatible with your demented interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Now, if you are not happy with the outcome of this logical, please feel to explain why your initial premises cannot lead to the conclusion we reached.

Click to expand...

Are you operating under the false belief that the Supreme Court will adopt the rules similar to that of the Yale Logic Club in their deliberations?

And do you further labor under the self imposed belief that we are still living in the 18th century?

It seems that both are at the core of your claims that you are trying badly to pin upon me even thought I have repeatedly told you those are not my views.

haymarket said:

Are you operating under the false belief that the Supreme Court will adopt the rules similar to that of the Yale Logic Club in their deliberations?

Click to expand...

I was not talking about the supreme court. I was walking you through the logical ramifications of your ridiculous contention that "to infringe", relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means only to completely destroy the right.

And I know I was successful due to your non-response and decision to respond with a non sequitur.

And do you further labor under the self imposed belief that we are still living in the 18th century?

Click to expand...

Another non sequitur. That means I really connected with a headshot.

It seems that both are at the core of your claims that you are trying badly to pin upon me even thought I have repeatedly told you those are not my views.

Click to expand...

You claim that unless one is completely denied arms their right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. This means that barring all firearms except single shot, black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

It's called logic. Check it out sometime.

Federalist said:

Quite true. You never explicitly said a word about flintlocks. And now, for the benefit of the class, I'm going to do a little exercise. We call it logical reasoning.

Click to expand...

Federalist - since you are such a fan of logic, why is it when I have explained to you that it is your position which is illogical since court after court has upheld tons of what you and others call incremental infringements upon your own broad view of the Second Amendment - thus rendering them in what you would say should be unconstitutional - and thus it is your view which is illogical, you conveniently ignore that?

One would think that a skilled logic practitioner such as you are attempting to be would be far more consistent and well...... logical.

haymarket said:

Federalist - since you are such a fan of logic, why is it when I have explained to you that it is your position which is illogical since court after court has upheld tons of what you and others call incremental infringements upon your own broad view of the Second Amendment - thus rendering them in what you would say should be unconstitutional - and thus it is your view which is illogical, you conveniently ignore that?

Click to expand...

And this somehow proves your ridiculous claim that "to infringe" means to completely destroy?

I think that all it proves is that the court sees some limits on the right to keep and bear arms as reasonable and justified, and therefore constitutional.

haymarket said:

Are you operating under the false belief that the Supreme Court will adopt the rules similar to that of the Yale Logic Club in their deliberations?

And do you further labor under the self imposed belief that we are still living in the 18th century?

It seems that both are at the core of your claims that you are trying badly to pin upon me even thought I have repeatedly told you those are not my views.

Click to expand...

I don't recall there being a logic club at yale. There was a political union which exists to this day and gun issues were often debated there. and there is a Law school where the preeminent constitutional scholar is a gentleman named Akhil Reed Amar who despite being liberal suggests that the individual rights interpretation of the second amendment is correct.

But I think things would be so much easier in your conversations with those of us who truly support the second amendment if you would

1) tell us what sort of laws currently being discussed would-in your opinion-violate the second amendment

2) if you do not believe that the proposed bans on "assault weapons" (a term that mainly deals with semi autos that have certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and folding or collapsing stocks) are unconstitutional, at what point what sort of ban would become unconstitutional

3) If you do not believe a magazine limit is unconstitutional tell us what limit would be unconstitutional. If you believe the government may limit firearms to only one shot, let us know

4) and finally, what was the purpose of the second amendment

a) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that regular infantry uses

b) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that militia serving with regulars would use

c) to allow only civilians who are members of the national guard or state police forces to have certain weapons

I think if you could give the sort of straight answers most of those of us on this gun control section of this forum do, it would clear much up

You could say "let's make sure that individuals can't obtain nuclear warheads" and the gun nuts would be all outraged claiming "they are taking away our rights".

Ikari said:

Guns are not magic, they are tools; quite right. And the remain legitimate and rightful tool of the People.

Click to expand...

I don't say otherwise. But I do say they don't serve he same purpose, and that our attachment to them is less relevant today.

Turtle asks.

1) tell us what sort of laws currently being discussed would-in your opinion-violate the second amendment

Click to expand...

I have repeatedly stated the same thing: if the government created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms, then it would violate the Second Amendment. That applies to ALL and ANY laws now being considered if they had that effect.

2) if you do not believe that the proposed bans on "assault weapons" (a term that mainly deals with semi autos that have certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and folding or collapsing stocks) are unconstitutional, at what point what sort of ban would become unconstitutional

Click to expand...

same answer as #1 - and why is it okay for you and others in the gun culture to use the phrase ASSAULT WEAPONS but when others do it they are mocked and ridiculed and we told there are not such things?

3) If you do not believe a magazine limit is unconstitutional tell us what limit would be unconstitutional. If you believe the government may limit firearms to only one shot, let us know

Click to expand...

same answer as #1.

4) and finally, what was the purpose of the second amendment

Click to expand...

To allow citizens to keep and bear arms.

a) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that regular infantry uses

Click to expand...

that is a statement NOT a question that can be answered.

b) to allow civilians to have access to the same weapons that militia serving with regulars would use

Click to expand...

another statement and not a question

c) to allow only civilians who are members of the national guard or state police forces to have certain weapons

Click to expand...

a third statement and not a question

If a, b and c were suppose to be multiple choice - I reject them all and provided the actual answer which you left out.

I think if you could give the sort of straight answers most of those of us on this gun control section of this forum do, it would clear much up

Click to expand...

Just did.

disneydude said:

You could say "let's make sure that individuals can't obtain nuclear warheads" and the gun nuts would be all outraged claiming "they are taking away our rights".

Click to expand...

idiotic post alert. Its almost always the anti gun extremists who try to make that claim that when we argue we civilians should have the same civilian defensive weapons that CIVILIAN police officers are issued to defend themselves against the same criminals we face, we somehow are arguing we ought to have ICBMS

your Heroes-Obama and Cuomo are not trying to limit us from having ICBMS, Nukes or WMDs. They are trying to prevent us from owning weapons that hold even less than half the amount of cartridges that CIVILIAN cops, poultry inspectors, dog wardens and court security officers are regularly issued

so please stop trying to divert with such silly idiocy about nukes

its not honest nor helpful

haymarket said:

I have repeatedly stated the same thing: if the government created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms, then it would violate the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Therefore, if the government creates an environment where a person can at least keep and bear some form of arm, then it is not violating the 2nd amendment, even if it bans all other arms than the type permitted.

Your "the 2nd would only be violated if a person could not keep and bear arms" suits you, because it allows you to justify laws that restrict gun possession. It allows you to justify any restriction short of an outright ban.

Too bad you can't back up your ridiculous "infringe means to destroy" opinion with any support from constitutional scholars.

haymarket said:

Turtle asks.


I have repeatedly stated the same thing: if the government created an environment where a person could not keep and bear arms, then it would violate the Second Amendment. That applies to ALL and ANY laws now being considered if they had that effect.





same answer as #1 - and why is it okay for you and others in the gun culture to use the phrase ASSAULT WEAPONS but when others do it they are mocked and ridiculed and we told there are not such things?


same answer as #1.



To allow citizens to keep and bear arms.



that is a statement NOT a question that can be answered.


another statement and not a question


a third statement and not a question

If a, b and c were suppose to be multiple choice - I reject them all and provided the actual answer which you left out.



Just did.

Click to expand...

I put "assault weapons" in quotation marks. Its a silly term that your party has used in an attempt to scare LIVs.

can you tell us what sort of weapons you think the second amendment allows non law enforcement civilians to own free of banning by the federal or state government

1) semi automatic pistols-and if so are there any limits to magazine capacity


2) semi auto rifles-and if so what sort of features are protected by the second amendment

same with magazine capacity

3) semi auto shotguns-and what features are protected by the second amendment

Federalist said:

Therefore, if the government creates an environment where a person can at least keep and bear some form of arm, then it is not violating the 2nd amendment, even if it bans all other arms than the type permitted.

Click to expand...

I imagine it would have to pass some sort of smell test in front of the Supreme Court.

My own suspicion is that limiting a person to an old firearm with only one shot would not pass that test while the current NY law just passed allows lots of choices for a person and probably would pass that test,. But that is just my personal opinion.

haymarket said:

I imagine it would have to pass some sort of smell test in front of the Supreme Court.

My own suspicion is that limiting a person to an old firearm with only one shot would not pass that test while the current NY law just passed allows lots of choices for a person and probably would pass that test,. But that is just my personal opinion.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it? Even the person with an old firearm with only one shot would still be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. What could the supreme court possibly find wrong with such a law? Such a law would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

TurtleDude said:

I put "assault weapons" in quotation marks. Its a silly term that your party has used in an attempt to scare LIVs.

Click to expand...

perhaps then you should take your own advice and refrain from using it.

can you tell us what sort of weapons you think the second amendment allows non law enforcement civilians to own free of banning by the federal or state government

Click to expand...

The language of the Second Amendment does not provide an answer for that.

1) semi automatic pistols-and if so are there any limits to magazine capacity

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect either from legislation or regulation.

2) semi auto rifles-and if so what sort of features are protected by the second amendment

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

same with magazine capacity

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

3) semi auto shotguns-and what features are protected by the second amendment

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

Of course, should you desire such protections, you can always use the amendment process to amend the Constitution.

Federalist said:

Why wouldn't it? Even the person with an old firearm with only one shot would still be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. What could the supreme court possibly find wrong with such a law? Such a law would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

As I said, I suspect it would not pass the smell test.

haymarket said:

perhaps then you should take your own advice and refrain from using it.



The language of the Second Amendment does not provide an answer for that.



The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect either from legislation or regulation.




The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.



The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.



The Second Amendment has no specific language to protect them from legislation or regulation.

Of course, should you desire such protections, you can always use the amendment process to amend the Constitution.

Click to expand...

so after months and months what you are saying is that the second amendment does not protect citizens' rights to own any guns. Thank you.

TurtleDude said:

so after months and months what you are saying is that the second amendment does not protect citizens' rights to own any guns. Thank you.

Click to expand...

NO. I did NOT say that. the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. That would mean owning a gun.

This is beyond dispute.

Perhaps you are unsatisfied with what the Amendment actually says? You could always propose changing it through the Amendment process.

haymarket said:

NO. I did NOT say that. the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. That would mean owning a gun.

Click to expand...

Guns are not specifically mentioned.

Federalist said:

Guns are not specifically mentioned.

Click to expand...

So you wish to exclude guns from the Amendment 2?

haymarket said:

As I said, I suspect it would not pass the smell test.

Click to expand...

Yes, you already said this. My question was WHY would it smell? No other sort of firearm is protected in any way. No reason why all firearms except a single shot .22 could not be prohibited, no? A person with a single shot .22 is certainly enjoying his right to keep and bear arms, so what problem could the Supreme Court have with such a prohibition?

TurtleDude said:

idiotic post alert. Its almost always the anti gun extremists who try to make that claim that when we argue we civilians should have the same civilian defensive weapons that CIVILIAN police officers are issued to defend themselves against the same criminals we face, we somehow are arguing we ought to have ICBMS

your Heroes-Obama and Cuomo are not trying to limit us from having ICBMS, Nukes or WMDs. They are trying to prevent us from owning weapons that hold even less than half the amount of cartridges that CIVILIAN cops, poultry inspectors, dog wardens and court security officers are regularly issued

so please stop trying to divert with such silly idiocy about nukes

its not honest nor helpful

Click to expand...

You are missing the point...the point being....gun nut wackos will cry about ANY restriction on guns. Period.

haymarket said:

So you wish to exclude guns from the Amendment 2?

Click to expand...

Exclude? Of course not. They are arms, so the right to keep and bear them may not be infringed.

disneydude said:

You are missing the point...the point being....gun nut wackos will cry about ANY restriction on guns. Period.

Click to expand...

Just like left wingnuts got bat**** crazy over 30 kids but support abortion while ignoring alcohol and drug related deaths among kids.

Boo Radley said:

I don't say otherwise. But I do say they don't serve he same purpose, and that our attachment to them is less relevant today.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I do think that they serve the same purpose, defense of life, liberty, and property from any threat. I do think that not only is it relevant today, it is necessary for us to understand the importance and to be properly trained and prepared. It's not to say that we should fly off at the littlest of things; but you cannot be lax in your duty and responsibilities to the Republic either. Free is a low entropy state, it necessitates continual work merely to maintain, even more to improve. If you don't put in the work at all, it WILL degrade; without doubt, without exception. It's essentially physics.