• 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!

Thought experiment on the Second Amendment

I think Ataraxia's on to something, although he's arrogant and rude in presenting it. The focus on arms to be kept and carried isn't for actual defense from a tyrannical, but for the idea of defense from a tyrannical government. Guns confer a feeling of power and control to any given situation, and it's that feeling that the gun-rights people want to protect. Actual resistance to tyranny would most likely come from the military itself, not an overweight man with a collection of shotguns and semi-autos.
 
Lursa said:
I asked you about abuses or misuses of legally owned firepower (specifically what you listed) and you provided nothing.

Because they are exceedingly rare.

And yet you try to play the 'outrage' card.

Buh bye to your credibility.
Click to expand...

So if you have such great trust and your fellow Americans, why aren’t we having nukes on sale at the Walmart? After all, nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. Why restrict the rights of so many Americans to nuclear arms, when there has not been any case of abuse of these weapons? On what basis were these restrictions placed?
 
ataraxia said:
So if you have such great trust and your fellow Americans, why aren’t we having nukes on sale at the Walmart? After all, nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. Why restrict the rights of so many Americans to nuclear arms, when there has not been any case of abuse of these weapons? On what basis were these restrictions placed?
Click to expand...

Nothing like doubling down on complete nonsense to drive your lack of credibility home.

It's obvious you are not looking for honest discussion.

And I already provided an answer for your question re: nukes in my initial response.
 
spud_meister said:
I think Ataraxia's on to something, although he's arrogant and rude in presenting it. The focus on arms to be kept and carried isn't for actual defense from a tyrannical, but for the idea of defense from a tyrannical government. Guns confer a feeling of power and control to any given situation, and it's that feeling that the gun-rights people want to protect. Actual resistance to tyranny would most likely come from the military itself, not an overweight man with a collection of shotguns and semi-autos.
Click to expand...

Thank you for capturing the essence of my argument so succinctly.

And my apologies for coming across as rude. Sometimes, in writing, a little satire may come across as rudeness. I would like to assure everyone here that is not my intent.
 
Lursa said:
Nothing like doubling down on complete nonsense to drive your lack of credibility home.

It's obvious you are not looking for honest discussion.

And I already provided an answer for your question re: nukes in my initial response.
Click to expand...

And I provided a response to that. I’ll summarize it again: just seems to me completely random where you are trying to line for what is permissible for a private citizen to own. The line seems to be getting drawn somewhere at a mental image of John Wayne or something. In a real situation like you describe, where are you are trying to line is not up to the purpose you want. Not even a little bit.

So I really think this is just about wanting to be free to look like John Wayne. Not any real life purpose.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
I think Ataraxia's on to something, although he's arrogant and rude in presenting it. The focus on arms to be kept and carried isn't for actual defense from a tyrannical, but for the idea of defense from a tyrannical government. Guns confer a feeling of power and control to any given situation, and it's that feeling that the gun-rights people want to protect. Actual resistance to tyranny would most likely come from the military itself, not an overweight man with a collection of shotguns and semi-autos.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you read my post, 17, but there are many scenarios where the citizens would resist or even revolt, both in fiction and non-fiction, and online. It's mostly asymmetrical or guerilla warfare, terrorism, attacks on infrastructure, etc. But none are based on using firearms or even conventional warfare (that I can think of).

But yes scenarios also include the military siding with the citizenry. Mostly it describes them leaving to join their families or refusing to kill fellow Americans.
 
ataraxia said:
And I provided a response to that. I’ll summarize it again: just seems to me completely random where you are trying to line for what is permissible for a private citizen to home. The line seems to be getting drawn somewhere at a mental image of John Wayne or something. In a real situation like you describe, where are you are trying to line is not up to the purpose you want. Not even a little bit.

So I really think this is just about wanting to be free to look like John Wayne. Not any real life purpose.
Click to expand...

If you dont understand the difference between a firearm and a nuclear device, I cant help you.
 
Lursa said:
Not sure if you read my post, 17, but there are many scenarios where the citizens would resist or even revolt, both in fiction and non-fiction, and online. It's mostly asymmetrical or guerilla warfare, terrorism, attacks on infrastructure, etc. But none are based on using firearms or even conventional warfare (that I can think of).

But yes scenarios also include the military siding with the citizenry. Mostly it describes them leaving to join their families or refusing to kill fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

All the more reason why such remote doomsday scenarios are no justification for any crazy weapon being available to any crazy person to carry any crazy place he pleases in regular daily life.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
If you dont understand the difference between a firearm and a nuclear device, I cant help you.
Click to expand...

Tell that to your friends here who think tanks and missile launchers are freedom. Did they get the memo?

Besides, the SALT Treaty during the Cold War was the acronym for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. They were referring to nuclear arms. That’s a type of arms. You are just making up distinctions that not many others seem to know about.
 
ataraxia said:
All the more reason why such remote doomsday scenarios are no justification for any crazy weapon being available to any crazy person to carry any crazy place he pleases in regular daily life.
Click to expand...

I have seen no one making that case.
 
ataraxia said:
Tell that to your friends here who think tanks and missile launchers are freedom. Did they get the memo?

Besides, the SALT Treaty during the Cold War was the acronym for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. They were referring to nuclear arms. That’s a type of arms. You are just making up distinctions that not many others seem to know about.
Click to expand...

Well for you, guns are the same as nukes so it's hard to connect with such an extreme view.
 
ataraxia said:
Need a permit for a tank with live ammo? And you guys were wondering where the slippery slope to full gun confiscation got started. I think you just found it. Permit for a tank with live ammo today, and government confiscating your kitchen knives tomorrow. Don’t give them an inch! OUTRAGE!!!

Right?


Right?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. They'll have to pry my tank out of my cold dead hands. Man, I'd really love to own a Panzer IV...... that would be kick ass !!!!!!!
 
Lursa said:
I have seen no one making that case.
Click to expand...

That’s the whole “slippery slope” argument of the NRA: any talk of any regulation on any crazy weapon is the first step towards full confiscation of all arms.

So you don’t buy it, huh?
 
Waddy said:
I totally agree. They'll have to pry my tank out of my cold dead hands. Man, I'd really love to own a Panzer IV...... that would be kick ass !!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet people will think twice about cutting you off in traffic anymore. You know what they say: “an armed society is a polite society”!
 
Waddy said:
I totally agree. They'll have to pry my tank out of my cold dead hands. Man, I'd really love to own a Panzer IV...... that would be kick ass !!!!!!!
Click to expand...

With advancing technology, you might be able to carry 10 times the firepower of a Panzer.... on a keychain in your front pocket! But if you make any moves to regulate that, that will be the first slippery slope to government taking away your kitchen knives too! So be very careful!
 
Lutherf said:
Actually, the "HE" in my comment stands for High Explosive which, in laymen's terms, would be "live ammo". From a practical standpoint it would probably be easier to get a manufacturer's license and make your own ammo instead of trying to buy it.

Look, speaking specifically to what I figure is the intent of the OP, the idea of keeping and bearing arms meant weapons reasonably capable of being carried and used by an individual. It did not lean "ordinance" which tends to be crew served and to fire projectiles with a significant area effect. That's not to say that a militia should be prohibited from having such weapons available but, rather, that it was expected that individuals would keep and bear personal firearms for their own protection and, if necessary, for service in a militia. Pocket nukes, bombs and level 12 Wizard Destruction spells are really not considered to be "arms" within the common meaning. They tend to be offensive weapons rather than defensive ones in that their use in close quarters would likely be dangerous or deadly to the user.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument is the founders did not limit themselves to what they could carry on their backs. They owned the best available at the time, and that included the carriage cannon, the artillery of the day. They didn't address tanks because tanks were not a problem. Jefferson owned an autoloader, one of the first successful ones.

Less than a hundred years later, Gatling invented a rapid fire weapon, which is still legal to possess and I believe the mini gun, which is legal to possess, is legal to possess and use without a class C license.

So other factors prevail. Tanks are not common because they are generally worth the trouble, not because they can't be easily carrried.
 
ataraxia said:
That’s the whole “slippery slope” argument of the NRA: any talk of any regulation on any crazy weapon is the first step towards full confiscation of all arms.

So you don’t buy it, huh?
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is "crazy" about a pistol with a greater than 10-round capacity magazine? Why is that "crazy" weapon issued to police officers?
 
ataraxia said:
Absolutely not. In fact, every American should be able to decide for themselves whether to have a drivers license and what kind of car to drive too. Unless, of course, they are blind. Or have Alzheimer’s or something. Or a history of seizures or heart trouble. Or they want to drive a car that is not street legal. And then there are speed limits. And traffic lights. And stop signs. And inspection and emissions requirements. There are tons and tons of regulations, in fact, coming to think of it.

And cars are not even built expressly for the purpose of killing.

But...OUTRAGE!!!
Click to expand...

You are comparing a state issued privilege (driving a car on public roadways) to an individual constitutional right (owning and carrying a gun). That, alone, let's us all know where you stand - that owning and carrying a gun should become a (highly regulated?) state issued privilege in direct conflict with the US constitution's 2A. Constitutional rights, unlike state issued privileges, are something that one has unless removed by due process of law - not something that must be earned by taking a class, passing a test and paying a fee.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What, exactly, is "crazy" about a pistol with a greater than 10-round capacity magazine? Why is that "crazy" weapon issued to police officers?
Click to expand...

We can argue about where the line needs to be drawn. The problem here is with the argument that no line should ever be drawn, And that we shouldn’t even talk about it because of the ensuing slippery slope to full gun confiscation. Or that the line should be drawn at what one person can carry: because with advancing technology, there is theoretically no limit to the amount of firepower one person can carry.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are comparing a state issued privilege (driving a car on public roadways) to an individual constitutional right (owning and carrying a gun). That, alone, let's us all know where you stand - that owning and carrying a gun should become a (highly regulated?) state issued privilege in direct conflict with the US constitution's 2A. Constitutional rights, unlike state issued privileges, are something that one has unless removed by due process of law - not something that must be earned by taking a class, passing a test and paying a fee.
Click to expand...

Yes. My argument is that advancing Technology has already made the second amendment obsolete. For those diehard Second Amendment supporters who don’t think it already has, technology will continue advance to the point where even they will eventually have to cry uncle. Any crazy untrained person in the public being able to carry 10 times the fire power of a modern tank in their front pocket?

Owning guns should be more like drivers licenses, not some natural right to any crazy thing any crazy person wants.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. My argument is that advancing Technology has already made the second amendment obsolete. For those diehard Second Amendment supporters who don’t think it already has, technology will continue advance to the point where even they will eventually have to cry uncle. Any crazy untrained person in the public being able to carry 10 times the fire power of a modern tank in their front pocket?

Owning guns should be more like drivers licenses, not some natural right to any crazy thing any crazy person wants.
Click to expand...

And where can one find this "pocket sized powerhouse" weapon?

I cant find them at 7-11.
 
ataraxia said:
We can argue about where the line needs to be drawn. The problem here is with the argument that no line should ever be drawn, And that we shouldn’t even talk about it because of the ensuing slippery slope to full gun confiscation. Or that the line should be drawn at what one person can carry: because with advancing technology, there is theoretically no limit to the amount of firepower one person can carry.
Click to expand...

There has already been a line drawn by the SCOTUS - guns commonly in use for lawful purposes are the subset of arms for the purpose of 2A protection from government infringement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. My argument is that advancing Technology has already made the second amendment obsolete. For those diehard Second Amendment supporters who don’t think it already has, technology will continue advance to the point where even they will eventually have to cry uncle. Any crazy untrained person in the public being able to carry 10 times the fire power of a modern tank in their front pocket?

Owning guns should be more like drivers licenses, not some natural right to any crazy thing any crazy person wants.
Click to expand...

You have yet to provide any examples to support that (1st bolded above) assertion (currently some rifles, shotguns and handguns are currently legal) and thus must resort to the (2nd bolded above) assertion to deflect from that fact. The final assertion (3rd bolded above) requires the repeal of the 2A.
 
Polar Bum said:
And where can one find this "pocket sized powerhouse" weapon?

I cant find them at 7-11.
Click to expand...

You very well might, soon enough.

The point of the thought experiment on this thread was that technology is the game changer in what "arms" means in the 2A and why an unrestricted interpretation of it is obsolete. A modern soldier today can easily carry as much effective firepower as an entire colonial army in the 18th century. There is no reason to think that in another century or so, a soldier of that time will similarly not be able to carry as much firepower as an entire army today.

But at some point, it gets crazy for any crazy person in the public to be able to carry any crazy such thing in public, with the argument that they need it to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
There has already been a line drawn by the SCOTUS - guns commonly in use for lawful purposes are the subset of arms for the purpose of 2A protection from government infringement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Click to expand...

So you think it's OK that full auto weapons are currently regulated? If so, why are those OK to regulate but not semiautos with bump stocks? If not, what common lawful purpose is there for full autos?

And with more and more powerful weapons technology, why wouldn't there be new "lawful" uses for such weapons as they become available? I may want to target practice with my pocket sized artillery blaster. Why would you want to stop me?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom