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 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: Bullet Control

  1. #41
    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 Cephus View Post
    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.
    The creation of a strong standing army in no way replaces the necessity of a militia. People will -always- need the means to protect themselves, individually and collectively, as the state can NEVER sufficiently protect us from all dangers.

    And, in any event, you're arguing that the purpose of the 2nd is obsolete. Even if that were true, it doesn't negate its force of law.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,619

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The creation of a strong standing army in no way replaces the necessity of a militia. People will -always- need the means to protect themselves, individually and collectively, as the state can NEVER sufficiently protect us from all dangers.
    But the amendment was never put in place to guarantee personal protection. I'm not arguing with your point, I agree with it, I'm just saying that using the 2nd amendment to support said point doesn't work.

    And, in any event, you're arguing that the purpose of the 2nd is obsolete. Even if that were true, it doesn't negate its force of law.
    No, and we do have laws that do give us the right to own firearms and that's fine. I'm just arguing against the gun nuts who want to be able to own bazookas and tanks and anti-aircraft weapon and nukes (and yes, there are these nutballs out there) because they think the 2nd amendment gives them that right.

    It doesn't. It never did.
    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

  3. #43
    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 Cephus View Post
    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.

    Then again, in the context in which it was written, Alexander Hamilton presumed the existence of a standing army and a militia and stated that if the would-be tyrant, what we would call an "obama" today, wanted to use those forces to infringe on the citizen's liberties, the citizens would still have the final recourse of overthrowing they tyrant with their own guns.

    Under absolutely no circumstances can it be imagined that the people who wrote the Second Amendment envisioned a future in which a standing army or an organized militia would justify the deprivation of the people's right to own guns. That was covered more than adequately in Federalist 28.

  4. #44
    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 Cephus View Post
    But the amendment was never put in place to guarantee personal protection. I'm not arguing with your point, I agree with it, I'm just saying that using the 2nd amendment to support said point doesn't work.
    Sure it does. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, part of which is the use of that right in personal self-defense. It may have been done so that said right can always be exercised collectively, but to ensure that, they protected the right at the individual level.

    I'm just arguing against the gun nuts who want to be able to own bazookas and tanks and anti-aircraft weapon and nukes (and yes, there are these nutballs out there) because they think the 2nd amendment gives them that right.
    I don't worry myself with that. There's no way to argue that the term "arms" doesnt cover any and all firearms, which is the extent of my concern on that issue.

  5. #45
    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 Cephus View Post
    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.
    Actually, your argument is what doesn't fly. In fact it fails miserably.

    1. There was no standing army because the founding fathers did not WANT there to be a standing army. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to raise and support Armies, but funding for that is not allowed to extend past two years; that same section empowers Congress to maintain a Navy. The reasoning is not hard to divine: Armies are too easily used to oppress the people, while a navy is less apt to be used thus.

    2. The justification is not just to protect the state, but to protect the "free State". An armed population is vital not just to preserving independence but also to preserving liberty.

    3. If you're going to argue historical context, at least attempt to get the historical context somewhat correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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.
    What is silly is your casual dismissal of the 2nd Amendment.

    What is silly is the convolutions you are willing to traverse in a futile and fairly foolish effort to circumvent the very simple language "shall not be infringed."

    What is silly is your notion that the government has any legal or moral right to regulate the ownership of weapons. The 2nd Amendment leaves no room for discussion on this; there is no such right. The right is of the people, it is an individual right (as are all the rights in the Bill of Rights), and it is beyond the competence of government to limit, regulate, or remove that right.

    What is silly is pretending the 2nd Amendment asserts anything but this.

  6. #46
    Pathetic Douchebag
    Cilogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-10-14 @ 03:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,587

    Re: Bullet Control

    Why do we need to right to carry firearms?
    Protection

    Protection from what?
    From the loons and nuts

    But isn't that why the loons and nuts exist?
    No it's something else, like the media or entertainment.

    Ok then we need to do something about that!
    But what?


  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,478

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    Why do we need to right to carry firearms?
    Protection

    Protection from what?
    From the loons and nuts

    But isn't that why the loons and nuts exist?No it's something else, like the media or entertainment.

    Ok then we need to do something about that!
    But what?
    Cilogy, that made very little sense. Are you attempting to suggest that loons and nuts exist because guns exist? If not, you need to work on communicating clearly, because that's what it sounded like.

    If you're suggesting we FEAR loons and nuts because they might have guns...they might also have swords, machetes, knives, poison gases (see Aum Shin Ryo), or other means of mayhem.

    If you wish to consider the anti-gunner's PERFECT WORLD, a world in which there are no guns, there IS a historical example....1066 AD in what is now called England. If you will examine that period, I think you will find it was hardly peaceful.

    In other words, even if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear (and making all guns go away is pure fantasy, no matter what laws are passed), it would not even come close to ending violence and lunacy.



    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #48
    Pathetic Douchebag
    Cilogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-10-14 @ 03:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,587

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Cilogy, that made very little sense. Are you attempting to suggest that loons and nuts exist because guns exist? If not, you need to work on communicating clearly, because that's what it sounded like.

    If you're suggesting we FEAR loons and nuts because they might have guns...they might also have swords, machetes, knives, poison gases (see Aum Shin Ryo), or other means of mayhem.

    If you wish to consider the anti-gunner's PERFECT WORLD, a world in which there are no guns, there IS a historical example....1066 AD in what is now called England. If you will examine that period, I think you will find it was hardly peaceful.

    In other words, even if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear (and making all guns go away is pure fantasy, no matter what laws are passed), it would not even come close to ending violence and lunacy.



    G.
    lol, nevermind you misunderstood.



  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,478

    Re: Bullet Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    lol, nevermind you misunderstood.


    Communication is sender-dependent. If the message is unclear... don't blame the recipient.

    Unless you were just being silly, which would figure.

    G

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #50
    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
    Why do we need to right to carry firearms?
    Protection

    Protection from what?
    From the loons and nuts
    Funny... I though it was protection from criminals.
    But then, that wouldn't be a strawman you could easily beat down...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •