Jump to content

Semi-Automatic Pistols Are Exactly What The 2Nd Amendment Intends To Protect


Flip Flop
 Share

Recommended Posts

"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. Constitution

I 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Flip Flop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 tongue.png

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...