• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A response to the nuke sticky

Goshin said:
1. WTF are you talking about

2. Misusing my words is not somewhere you want to go.
Click to expand...

I am not attempting to misuse your words. You were making a point about if everyone owned nukes. I made the same point about if everyone owned guns.
 
vegas giants said:
I am not attempting to misuse your words. You were making a point about if everyone owned nukes. I made the same point about if everyone owned guns.
Click to expand...



Oh good gawd.


Kindly leave me out of these pathetically inept comparisons. Make your own arguments and stop slapping my name on your nonsense.
 
Goshin said:
Oh good gawd.


Kindly leave me out of these pathetically inept comparisons. Make your own arguments and stop slapping my name on your nonsense.
Click to expand...

I will be happy to remove your name from any association with my comments. They are my own and reflect my own beliefs only. I was just trying to make a point but if you want out of it I am happy to oblige
 
Goshin said:
While I appreciate your fervor, I must disagree with you somewhat.

All rights are limited to some degree; if nothing else, you can't use your rights to violate someone else's.

Free speech? Is it your right to stand in front of a crowd, whip them into a murderous frenzy with your words, then direct them to take out that rage on someone specific like say Jews or blacks or left-handed redheads? how about malicious slander or character assassination?

Religion? If you're a member of the Primitivist Druidic Church and your religion calls for a human sacrifice on Samhain, is that okay? What about if the required sacrifice is unwilling or a minor? Or if your religion requires you to murder heretics?

Perhaps you have a point about arms and ordinance not being distinguished... but I'd think if any restriction could be seen as justified (and clearly some are, as above), then restricting private ownership of nukes and other WMD is pretty damn obviously a necessity to society. They can't even be stored safely without expert monitoring and maintenance, and have no utility in lawful use by a private citizen.
Click to expand...

Look in general I agree with you on most things. We diverge on the topic of whether or not rights such as speech religion ect. are absolute presuming NO direct harm as a result of their exercise. Note in this discussion I am referring only to government prosecution not being brought to court by a fellow citizen. The very act of putting limits on these rights beyond direct harm to another in fact negates them as rights and makes them privileges granted by said government, as the government now how say on how you exercise them. If something is a right then other than direct harm to another the government should have no say in its exercise.

To your points directly.

Speech. The government has NO business regulating ANYTHING you say up to and including the advocating of murder of someone else. Period. End of sentence. Why is that? Simply because the act of speech is ONE HALF of the act of COMMUNICATION. One speaks, that does not mean one listens as well. The act of listening and comprehending is that of the listener and not the speaker and any actions performed on the basis of a speech made by said speaker is solely the responsibility of the listener taking whatever action a speaker uninvolved except for speaking says. The speaker is solely responsible for their actions and only their actions, as is the listener. When my children tell me the excuse "well they told me to do it", I look at them like they have two heads and say "So?" as would any other normal parent. If you say something false then it is up to those affected to prove they were harmed in court, and how much harm was done as a result of said speech. The government is only in involved as the referee.

The example for religion you gave, is directly harming another who is not a willing participant, therefor interfering with said unwilling participants rights amongst those being the right to life.

Here is my primary point, the court has unconstitutionally restricted rights, for perhaps good reasons, but we are supposedly a nation of laws and if they need to be changed for the public good the process given of which there are two, the article 5 convention of states and the amendment process are available and should be availed, not trashing or stretching the meaning of words or "interpreting the meaning" of this that or the other. Which means that if people want people to not have nukes or other wmd's they should stop being ******s and amend the constitution as appropriate. Doing otherwise just leads to what we have now for a constitution, .......toilet paper.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are wrong. Your argument is better served with a tenth amendment argument rather than a second amendment approach. while Freeper stuff is normally a bit over the top and suspect, this article is pretty much point on even if I have some issues with how he classifies some weapons

bottom line

Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]
Click to expand...

TD you are an attorney and you damn well know a bull**** argument when you see one, and I also happen to know you know our countries martial history as well as I do and you know that the people when the constitution was adopted where better armed than our military by far, in fact its one of the reasons of the inclusion of the Marque and Reprisal clause so the new congress could make use of those private individuals and groups to take care of minor and or ongoing military matters like piracy, so the new countries meager resources could more effectively be used and stretched. The people back then were armed with the modern day equivalents of artillery batteries and battleships. Not exactly precision or self-defense weapons systems. The ONLY reason we are having this discussion is because no one wants to adjust the second amendment for modern weapons systems such as nuclear bombs, because they fear that if they open that box they may lose the right to keep and bear totally, so they make up bull**** on how there is a limit on the second amendment when quite clearly to anyone with a 5th grade reading level there is not.
 
ecofarm said:
Militia essentially means infantry. That is not to say that organization is required. Merely that arms necessary for a militia (infantry) are protected. TD does, in fact, agree with this understanding.

A militia is required for a free state, the arms involved are the ones protected. TD agrees this is a delineation between weapons of self defense and weapon of national defense. Do you need links?

Weapons of self defense, arms of a militia/infantry, are not to be infringed upon.

You think the 2nd lacks any such delineation and nukes are not to be infringed upon?
Click to expand...

I need but one word. Yes.

The second amendment has ZERO limits. Period. End of sentence.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I need but one word. Yes.
Click to expand...

How about his like on my post #3. I think that's clear enough.

The second amendment has ZERO limits. Period. End of sentence.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the 2nd is based on the natural right to self defense? It's not really about having an object, it's about the realization of a natural right. It's not meant for private nukes, or other weapons of national defense. National defense is the realm of the state. Self defense is the realm of the individual. Where does the divide exist? Infantry arms are weapons of self defense.
 
ecofarm said:
How about his like on my post #3. I think that's clear enough.



Do you understand that the 2nd is based on the natural right to self defense? It's not really about having an object, it's about the realization of a natural right. It's not meant for private nukes, or other weapons of national defense. National defense is the realm of the state. Self defense is the realm of the individual. Where does the divide exist? Infantry arms are weapons of self defense.
Click to expand...

Do you know how to read English? Do quote where the second amendment says what limits there are on the people keeping and bearing said arms. I bet you cant. Because there is non and the only ways to get one is via amendment and article 5. The kicker is no one wants to touch that box so they try to make bull**** up out of whole cloth.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Do you know how to read English? Do quote where the second amendment says what limits there are on the people keeping and bearing said arms. I bet you cant. Because there is non and the only ways to get one is via amendment and article 5. The kicker is no one wants to touch that box so they try to make bull**** up out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

What's necessary? A militia, an armed populace. What's protected? Militia arms, infantry arms.

Do you not understand the 2nd is about self defense? That you think it should protect private nuke ownership demonstrates your lack of deeper understanding.

For the realization of the natural right to self defense, weapons of self defense and national defense must be delineated. This was done in a way that transcends time.
 
ecofarm said:
What's necessary? A militia, an armed populace. What's protected? Militia arms, infantry arms.

Do you not understand the 2nd is about self defense? That you think it should protect private nuke ownership demonstrates your lack of deeper understanding.

For the realization of the natural right to self defense, weapons of self defense and national defense must be delineated. This was done in a way that transcends time.
Click to expand...

It has become apparent to me that reading and comprehension of what is read is not very good any more in this country.

The second amendment is NOT about self defense. Its about your sovereign right to keep and bear arms, period. Whether you use them for good or ill is immaterial.

No realization is necessary, simply compliance on the part of the government.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It has become apparent to me that reading and comprehension of what is read is not very good any more in this country.

The second amendment is NOT about self defense. Its about your sovereign right to keep and bear arms, period. Whether you use them for good or ill is immaterial.

No realization is necessary, simply compliance on the part of the government.
Click to expand...

It appears your grasp of the second is as tenuous as your understanding of "anthropomorphic" climate change. Do you actually study anything or you just take a position and spew whatever random BS pops into your head?
 
PirateMk1 said:
TD you are an attorney and you damn well know a bull**** argument when you see one, and I also happen to know you know our countries martial history as well as I do and you know that the people when the constitution was adopted where better armed than our military by far, in fact its one of the reasons of the inclusion of the Marque and Reprisal clause so the new congress could make use of those private individuals and groups to take care of minor and or ongoing military matters like piracy, so the new countries meager resources could more effectively be used and stretched. The people back then were armed with the modern day equivalents of artillery batteries and battleships. Not exactly precision or self-defense weapons systems. The ONLY reason we are having this discussion is because no one wants to adjust the second amendment for modern weapons systems such as nuclear bombs, because they fear that if they open that box they may lose the right to keep and bear totally, so they make up bull**** on how there is a limit on the second amendment when quite clearly to anyone with a 5th grade reading level there is not.
Click to expand...

you need to focus on the tenth amendment and stop getting thrashed on the second amendment
 
PirateMk1 said:
TD you are an attorney and you damn well know a bull**** argument when you see one, and I also happen to know you know our countries martial history as well as I do and you know that the people when the constitution was adopted where better armed than our military by far
Click to expand...

When the Constitution was drafted, the citizens had cannons? More than the government had?

And the only reason I would even consider this is that by the time the Constitution had been drafted, the Navy had been disbanded for almost 15 years. In fact, the very situation the country was finding itself in was why the Articles of Confederation were thrown out, and the new Constitution was drafted.

And under the new Constitution, the Navy was granted the money to build 8 new frigates. 6 of 44 guns (canons), and 2 of 36 guns.

How many civilians had that kind of firepower? At most a large merchantman might have 2-4 guns, generally of a small caliber and mounted in pintel swivel mounts.

And just having guns does not make an army. It takes a lot more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom