View Poll Results: What do you think about putting stricter regulations on bullets rather than guns?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    3 7.14%
  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    34 80.95%
  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    4 9.52%
  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    0 0%
  • Other

    1 2.38%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Bullet Control

  1. #31
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,207

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It is crystal clear. If you read the whole 2nd amendment it does not say "The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms necessary for the security of a free state shall not be infringed. So obviously The is the right of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state and a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of those rights shall not be infringed. seems redundant to list "people" and "militia" if the 2nd only applied to militias.

    Reverend_Hellh0und posted this in another thread about 2nd amendment rights, it pretty much states the obvious about the 2nd amendment.
    YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment



    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed seems pretty crystal clear to me.






    So buy that logic since they didn't have porn magazines, tv, radio and computers athe government can regulate what you say one those since the founding forefathers couldn't have contemplated those things?
    I'm not saying that I disagree. I am simply saying that just like other parts of the Constitution, it is subject to interpretation and not "crystal clear" as many suggest.
    Again...the weapons of today could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution and is subject to interpretation as well.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  2. #32
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I'm not saying that I disagree. I am simply saying that just like other parts of the Constitution, it is subject to interpretation and not "crystal clear" as many suggest.
    What the 2nd Amendment is is explicit.

    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.
    Read the Bill of Rights and one thing becomes immediately apparent: The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment presented without modification of any kind. The right to keep and bear arms is the only one that receives the categorical protection to the people that it "shall not be infringed."

    Can this really be coincidental? Can this be merely a grammatical accident?

    Given the eloquence all of our founding fathers had in abundance, that hardly seems likely. Given the history each had in their experience with the British government, it also seems unlikely that any of the founding fathers could have been as feckless or as lacking in anticipation as some would suggest.

    The 2nd Amendment stands as the least subtle of all of the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right presented in the whole of the Constitution as an absolute and unequivocal right, the language of which gives it a sacrosanct status. Per the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is beyond disputation, is beyond mitigation, is beyond moderation. Per the 2nd Amendment, it is the one right that no government has the power to affect in even the slightest. That is the ineluctable consequence of the categorical phrasing "shall not be infringed."

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Again...the weapons of today could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution and is subject to interpretation as well.
    The Land Pattern Musket (aka, "The Brown Bess") was standard issue in the British Army begin in 1722. By the time of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the smoothbore musket was being displaced by the more accurate rifle.

    Cannon of the American Revolution fired 3 and 4-pound shells. By the War of 1812, cannon were hurling 18 pound shells downrange.

    Weapons technology advances in every age, and in every age man learns better how to wage war and demolish his fellow man. Even if the founding fathers could not imagine jet aircraft, tanks, or machine guns, to suggest they did not perceive the steady advance of military technology is to suggest they had a poor acquaintance with the profession of arms--is to suggest that which the biographies of the founding fathers flatly contradicts.

    Additionally, the founding fathers were people who had just thrown off the forms and customs of British government, and the history of private ownership of arms in England was a history of control and restriction--different social classes in England were permitted to own different weapons. Is it credible to claim that, in drafting the 2nd Amendment, mindful of the British experience of the keeping of arms, that they would have intended to duplicate that experience by limiting the types of arms available to the general population, that despite rejecting nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy they would perpetuate one of the foundations of nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy--restricted access of the people to weapons?

    The founding fathers need not have anticipated the highly efficient weapons we have today to recognize the imperative in a free society of not limiting the power of the individual man to arm himself, and not restricting the people's arms to a level intrinsically less than that of the government. Whatever arms soldiers carry, private citizens must be able to carry--that capacity of the private citizen is the sole guarantor of the free State, which is what the 2nd Amendment says....explicitly.

  3. #33
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,207

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    What the 2nd Amendment is is explicit.



    Read the Bill of Rights and one thing becomes immediately apparent: The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment presented without modification of any kind. The right to keep and bear arms is the only one that receives the categorical protection to the people that it "shall not be infringed."

    Can this really be coincidental? Can this be merely a grammatical accident?

    Given the eloquence all of our founding fathers had in abundance, that hardly seems likely. Given the history each had in their experience with the British government, it also seems unlikely that any of the founding fathers could have been as feckless or as lacking in anticipation as some would suggest.

    The 2nd Amendment stands as the least subtle of all of the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right presented in the whole of the Constitution as an absolute and unequivocal right, the language of which gives it a sacrosanct status. Per the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is beyond disputation, is beyond mitigation, is beyond moderation. Per the 2nd Amendment, it is the one right that no government has the power to affect in even the slightest. That is the ineluctable consequence of the categorical phrasing "shall not be infringed."


    The Land Pattern Musket (aka, "The Brown Bess") was standard issue in the British Army begin in 1722. By the time of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the smoothbore musket was being displaced by the more accurate rifle.

    Cannon of the American Revolution fired 3 and 4-pound shells. By the War of 1812, cannon were hurling 18 pound shells downrange.

    Weapons technology advances in every age, and in every age man learns better how to wage war and demolish his fellow man. Even if the founding fathers could not imagine jet aircraft, tanks, or machine guns, to suggest they did not perceive the steady advance of military technology is to suggest they had a poor acquaintance with the profession of arms--is to suggest that which the biographies of the founding fathers flatly contradicts.

    Additionally, the founding fathers were people who had just thrown off the forms and customs of British government, and the history of private ownership of arms in England was a history of control and restriction--different social classes in England were permitted to own different weapons. Is it credible to claim that, in drafting the 2nd Amendment, mindful of the British experience of the keeping of arms, that they would have intended to duplicate that experience by limiting the types of arms available to the general population, that despite rejecting nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy they would perpetuate one of the foundations of nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy--restricted access of the people to weapons?

    The founding fathers need not have anticipated the highly efficient weapons we have today to recognize the imperative in a free society of not limiting the power of the individual man to arm himself, and not restricting the people's arms to a level intrinsically less than that of the government. Whatever arms soldiers carry, private citizens must be able to carry--that capacity of the private citizen is the sole guarantor of the free State, which is what the 2nd Amendment says....explicitly.
    Excellent interpretation.
    "A Man you can bait with a tweet can't be trusted with nuclear weapons"

  4. #34
    Herzschmerz !
    Ahmed Shaheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: Bullet Control

    We need bullet control



    Just like neo ..

  5. #35
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    I think we are slowly reaching the tipping point in gun violence. Something has to be done. Am I the one to decide? No. I don't want to be.
    Gun violence is lower now than it was 15 years ago.

    Making it harder for the law abiding to get and use guns will NOT lower gun violence.

  6. #36
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution ...
    This applies to the telephone. Does this mean that the 4th amendment doesnt apply?
    This also applies to CNN and the internet. Does this mean that the 1st amendment doesn;t apply?

    so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
    Tell us how any firearm you care to mention isnt covered by the term as it is used in the 2nd.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bullet Control

    The left needs to leave gun ownership alone.

    EVERY SINGLE TIME the left mentions gun control somebody needs to smash them in the face with a 9-Iron.

    Eventually, even the liberal hippy leftist wackos will start to learn that usurping our 2nd Amendment rights is a bad idea.

    We have the right to bear arms .... the leftists need to learn to respect the constitution.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I'm not saying that I disagree. I am simply saying that just like other parts of the Constitution, it is subject to interpretation and not "crystal clear" as many suggest.
    What's not clear about "shall not be infringed"?


    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Again...the weapons of today could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution and is subject to interpretation as well.
    Completely irrelevant.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,618

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It is crystal clear. If you read the whole 2nd amendment it does not say "The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms necessary for the security of a free state shall not be infringed. So obviously The is the right of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state and a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of those rights shall not be infringed. seems redundant to list "people" and "militia" if the 2nd only applied to militias.

    Reverend_Hellh0und posted this in another thread about 2nd amendment rights, it pretty much states the obvious about the 2nd amendment.
    YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment
    Unfortunately, that just doesn't fly. You have to read it in the context of the time at which it was written. At that time, there was no standing army, the militia was made up of the people. Each and every able bodied man was expected to keep weapons in the home so that in times of crisis, they could come out and serve their town, state or country's defense. In fact, people of the day owned cannons and other seige-type weapons because the government really didn't own much military hardware at all. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is written as it is, it was guaranteeing the rights of the people, in the expected duty to protect their nation, to bear arms.

    Today, however, we do have a standing army, that requirement is no longer present and therefore, the 2nd amendment, in the context in which it was written, has been re-interpreted. While I have no problem whatsoever with personal firearm ownership, relying on a mis-reading, out of context, passage written 200+ years ago is a bit silly.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  10. #40
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post

    EVERY SINGLE TIME the left mentions gun control somebody needs to smash them in the face with a 9-Iron.
    If we do that, then they are going to try and restrict my right to own golf clubs. Its obvious that Callaway golf is at the root of violence in this country.
    Last edited by WI Crippler; 04-15-09 at 12:24 PM.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •