Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
325

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:

USMC,

You took that a bit too seriously. I don’t think you want a nuke, but I get the feeling you want the 2nd amendment to allow a wide range of weaponry (maybe I misread your posts) that just seem excessive. Again I don’t care if you guys want guns for whatever reason I just stated my opinion that I think some guys and gals want too many guns (and bombs and tanks etc), mostly because they’re crazy.[/quote]

I don’t want anything. The Constitution is what it is. The 2nd say what it says. The written words either mean something or they do not. If the 2nd doesn’t fit the 21st century then it is up to us to change it. Not to play semantics and hope our favorite Justice agree with us.

326

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
but I get the feeling you want the 2nd amendment to allow a wide range of weaponry (maybe I misread your posts) that just seem excessive. [/quote]

Here is the problem I have with your stance on the 2nd in a nut shell. The 2nd amendment doesn’t “allow” anything. It is a statement of the right to keep and bear arms and it isn’t written in such as way as to allow for your feelings about what is or is not excessive.

327

random s–t
children are like guns, just because you can have one doesnt mean you should

i know 3 people who own guns that i dont believe they should be allowed near guns, 1 of them should never be allowed in public
i know many people that own guns that i would trust

local hospital er during wave of gang violence someone posted sign
REMEMBER THE LIFE YOU SAVE MAY TAKE YOURS

TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT ask an indian[native american to the pc crowed]

328

[quote]Darnell Becker wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve said this in other threads and will again here: if America’s inner city gun violence, especially gang on gang and black on black, is removed from the statistics our country’s gun violence problems mirror those of many low gun death European countries and our assault and rape stats ARE lower than many. Yes, all of this WITH the fact that guns are everywhere in non-inner city America.

Our problem is NOT the high number of guns. It’s the high number of teenage boys with no dad in the home.[/quote]

Maybe their assault stats are higher because they can’t just simply draw and shoot someone in the head, so they have to resolve disputes the old fashioned way.

They also have more women per capita who are rape worthy, which explains those stats. I backpacked through Europe one summer, and that’s what I noticed.

Guns would probably increase their rapes stats, women are more compliant when you point a gun at them.
[/quote]

If I remember correctly Australia’s rape #'s increased after their mass gun confiscation.

329

[quote]ZEB,

Seriously? This is your best effort?[/quote]

Best effort at what? Making you look like an ass? No, that has not yet begun I am simply trying to figure out what your position is and it seems that you are too. At first you make outrageous claims against guns wanting to curtail their use and production for everyone. Then you say something almost to the opposite.

I see, you are schizophrenic.

That’s not what you said in the beginning. Scroll back to my previous post for the two lines that you stated.

So you disagree with the 2nd amendment after all…until you change your mind again that is.

You did say something like this in your second post to me. But, nothing even remotely like this in your first gun hating post.

Look Pony, calling me an idiot on a thread where you have flip flopped a couple of times doesn’t exactly help your point. I know where I stand on the issue and have not wavered one iota. Yes, I think we need an armed populace. When someone reaches the age of 21 it should be mandatory for them to get a gun. Obviously, the mentally unstable, or those who have committed criminal acts are excluded.

My belief is that the more guns in the hands of honest citizenry the less crime and mass shootings we will see.

I have not wavered one word from that position in almost 12 years of posting on T nation. If you’d have been more clear on your position in your first post then all of this could have been avoided (that is if you are now being sincere). But somehow I think you are making all of this up as you go along because of the extreme backlash you are attempting to defend.

By the way, nice photo that you posted. But, as you know this is the Internet and that picture could be of anyone. And judging by your flip-flopping both pro and con guns I think you have more problems than just stepping in crap in this thread.

Now run along and go practice your handgun skills. As you said earlier you are not good at it…unless you are good at it now and didn’t really mean what you originally said, like the rest of your earlier post.

There you go.

330

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Go back and read the George Will article I’ve posted twice. Your problem is you really don’t fundamentally understand the topic of this thread and you’ve jumped in here like a teenage girl with a whole bunch of nothing more than feelings.[/quote]

BINGO!

331

[quote]Darnell Becker wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Do you think Chicago would have less gang crime if anyone at any time could go to a gun store and buy a gun without a background check? [/quote]

Yes.

There might be more scum bag gang thugs killing each other. That is a possibility. But there would be far less innocent people being killed as the scum that stalk such people just might be thinking “hey that dude is probably packing a gun lets keep walking.”

Keep in mind the example set by the old west from about 1860 to 1895. Everyone from about age 10 on learned to shoot and owned a gun. How many mass shootings were there back then-None.[/quote]

That’s a ridiculous argument, there are places and times where everyone is/was packing heat ant there are/were still mass shootings. Also places where no one is carrying and there are no mass shootings.

The old west? Really? You’re reaching so much, Reed Richards from the Fantastic Four would be blown away.[/quote]

No actually I’m not reaching. Read up on the old west. There were killings for sure but it was, in most cases bad guys shooting at good guys who were armed and vice versa. In fact, many of the ignorant think that there were plenty of shootouts in the old west. When in fact most arguments were settled with fists. I looked closely at Tombstones and Dodge city arrest records to name just two. The typical arrests were for fighting, drunkenness, disturbing the peace and the like. In fact as an interesting side note many times the local law was paid a commission on how many arrests were made. And when there was shooting it was in most cases one man shooting at another and both had guns.

No my friend mass shootings where one, or two men barges in and shoots a group of innocent people were much more rare back then.

And we both know why—most everyone owned a gun and would shoot back.

335

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

…The 2nd amendment doesn’t “allow” anything…

[/quote]

It displays a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. Even TB made the same mistake when he said the 2nd “entitles.” I called him out on that and he never responded.

There’s no way anyone’s ever gonna get it right when they don’t even comprehend the fundamentals. If you don’t understand it takes 4 downs to get a first down how are you going to understand what a punt is?[/quote]

No, you didn’t call anyone out in anything. The Second Amendment does entitle people to ownership of arms, generic meaning of the word “entitle”. Meaning, if it was repealed, you’d have no constitutional right to such arms should the government outlaw them.

339

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

No, you didn’t call anyone out in anything. The Second Amendment does entitle people to ownership of arms, generic meaning of the word “entitle”. Meaning, if it was repealed, you’d have no constitutional right to such arms should the government outlaw them.

[/quote]

The word entitle implies that it can be taken away. Rights can not be taken away. You are born with rights and rights exist with or without permission. You have the right to defend yourself and the 2nd simply acknowledges that arms are part of that right. If the 2nd was repealed, that right would not disappear, rather the government would openly infringe upon it.

340

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

…The 2nd amendment doesn’t “allow” anything…

[/quote]

It displays a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. Even TB made the same mistake when he said the 2nd “entitles.” I called him out on that and he never responded.

There’s no way anyone’s ever gonna get it right when they don’t even comprehend the fundamentals. If you don’t understand it takes 4 downs to get a first down how are you going to understand what a punt is?[/quote]

No, you didn’t call anyone out in anything. The Second Amendment does entitle people to ownership of arms, generic meaning of the word “entitle”. Meaning, if it was repealed, you’d have no constitutional right to such arms should the government outlaw them.

[/quote]

Sorry, my friend, but like I said, a punt is incomprehensible if you don’t understand what four downs means.

You are dead wrong. Entitle means, “To give a right to.” The Constitution doesn’t give the right to keep and bear; it protects it. It protects a right given by God, a right that had been recognized to the colonies for a couple of centuries or so through English natural law.[/quote]

The Second Amendment can be repealed (just like every other amendment). If it is, and the government passes a law that says you can’t have a machine gun, and you get a machine gun and get caught violating the law, and your defense is “what about muh God-given right to muh machine gun??”, you’ll be laughed at, and you’ll need to start packing your bags to do hard time.

No, you don’t have an enforceable constitutional right to keep and bear arms if we repeal the Second Amendment. Thus, in such a scenario you wouldn’t be entitled to have one. As an example.

(Re: “fundamentals”: hilarious. I’ll be sure and start upping my Wilkipedia page and historical fiction written at the third grade level consumption to get my “fundamentals” up to to your “expert” level.)