Flip Flop Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 "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." -U.S. ConstitutionI hear alot of people arguing that semi automatic firearms, especially pistols, are not necessary for hunting, therefore they should be banned. This is the law in this country. The citizenry elected representatives and gave certain rights to the federal and state governments as well as prohibiting these governments from infringing on certain rights. The 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent the government from infringing on Citizens rights to bear arms. It says nothing about hunting. Zero, Zip, Zilch, Zippity, Nada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDaveG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I've come to despise the term "semi-automatic." It's not accurate, and it leads people to believe these firearms do things they cannot do."Self-loader" is a much more accurate and proper term for the functional mechanics of what we call "semi-automatics." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Flop Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 I've come to despise the term "semi-automatic." It's not accurate, and it leads people to believe these firearms do things they cannot do."Self-loader" is a much more accurate and proper term for the functional mechanics of what we call "semi-automatics."I can adopt that term. So few people understand anything about firearms. I can see how some would be confused by the word automatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrow69 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 from my kold ded latz! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEORGIAfan Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The Gun Control( Gun Ban really) is just a decoy to prevent actual talks to attempt to solve a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconsAboveBoard Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The Gun Control( Gun Ban really) is just a decoy to prevent actual talks to attempt to solve a problem.BOOM!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of God Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'm not personally into semi-auto, self loading, whatever. I like bolt action, pump, revolver, hammerlock, blackpowder. There THINGS you can do that are just quietly amazing...without the quiet part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatcorn Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Show me your militia, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Show me your militia, then.I get a kick out of people thinking the 2nd Amendment has any real relevance to where we are at today. It's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDaveG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I get a kick out of people thinking the 2nd Amendment has any real relevance to where we are at today. It's funny.The Supreme Court fails to see your humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The Supreme Court fails to see your humor.Our Supreme Court just flows with popular sentiment. Guns are popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDaveG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Our Supreme Court just flows with popular sentiment. Guns are popular.Right. That's why they came out with the Citizens United v. FEC and Kelo v. City of New London cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Ocean Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Show me your militia, then.Explained in terms simple enough for hopefully anyone to understand...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Right. That's why they came out with the Citizens United v. FEC and Kelo v. City of New London cases.I think Dred Scott is a better example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Another great example would be all affirmative action programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDaveG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 So the fact that they have erred before is evidence they erred this time.What about if they were to reverse the 2nd Amendment decisions? Does the same argument hold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hoopah! Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ahh, so that's why Peyton isn't calling the Jag's stupid for firing MM after one season - he's arguing about guns again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Flop Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Regardless of your political position on this issue, the Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you dont like it, change the constitution. Anything else is antithetical to the our form of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatcorn Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Regardless of your political position on this issue, the Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you dont like it, change the constitution. Anything else is antithetical to the our form of government.Iit's not clear. That much is obvious.Your post boils down to 'I'm right because I'm right'.Again, please direct me to your militia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDaveG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Iit's not clear. That much is obvious.Your post boils down to 'I'm right because I'm right'.Again, please direct me to your militia.How is yours different? You're begging the question with your demand to show you our militia. Perhaps rather than doing so, you could make an argument for why the prefatory militia clause somehow restricts the operative clause that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Flop Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Iit's not clear. That much is obvious.Your post boils down to 'I'm right because I'm right'.Again, please direct me to your militia.Please direct me to where the amendment says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. You see the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is in no way ambiguous. It is very clear.My post in no way boils down to 'Im right because Im right.' If I said "I have the right to keep and bear arms therefore the United States Federal Government is prohibited from infringing on that right, then you might have a case. However, I am saying that the US Government is based on a constitution, that constitution gives certain power and certain restrictions to the government, and one of the restrictions is that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'Instead of falsly claiming that I am engaging in a tautology perhaps you should have a look at your own argument and make sure that it is free of red herrings and straw men. Edited January 10, 2013 by Flip Flop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 So the fact that they have erred before is evidence they erred this time.What about if they were to reverse the 2nd Amendment decisions? Does the same argument hold?I doubt they will unless there was a remarkable turn of public opinion about guns. And that's not going to happen, no matter how many slaughters we have.Might as well try and ban sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ahh, so that's why Peyton isn't calling the Jag's stupid for firing MM after one season - he's arguing about guns again LOL. Yeah but I'm not really arguing about guns. I just don't think the writers of the Constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment in the context that it is framed today.But that is what our Supreme Court does, they give the Consititution context. I think everybody agrees on that.I just happen to think that public opinion is what eventually shapes that context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritzblitz 2.0 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Show me your militia, then.Show me anywhere else in the Constitution where "The People" does not refer to individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatcorn Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The context of the right referred to a well regulated militia as the justification for the individual right.I get that you guys are wrapped up in your gun rights, and how no one else really 'gets it', but let's not act like the interpretation of the amendment is somehow permanently settled as the right of an individual to own any type of arms they wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.