Gun Bans

[Sociobiology]

not in the slightest.

If you hold a federal firearms dealer permit you need to keep a record, even if you sell at a gunshow.
if you do not hold a federal firearms dealer permit, you CAN sell guns at a gunshow and you DO NOT need to record the sale.

I misread your statement (which seemed to indicate that one is exempt unless he/she is a private seller). My apologies.

No worries
I've done it too
I thought one of the earlier posters was talking about getting a background check to fire a gun over phone, when he was talking about getting a background check over the phone to buy a gun.

[Sociobiology]

It's a valid question.

It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

but does have something to do with the statement it was a response too.

complain to Grinning Dragon for resorting to "regulation is a violation of property rights" argument.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It's a valid question.

It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Indeed. Gotta love how we have to keep going over the same ground to these people over and over again. Can't wait to see Big J's response to nuke ownership being brought up yet again.

[Yes Im Biop]

Haven't checked in a while. But how far away is some idiocy Bill from being shot down?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Haven't checked in a while. But how far away is some idiocy Bill from being shot down?

Meh, anyone's guess really atm.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Indeed. Gotta love how we have to keep going over the same ground to these people over and over again. Can't wait to see Big J's response to nuke ownership being brought up yet again.

Just from a mere cost-benefit perspective...

[Paddy O Fernature]

Indeed. Gotta love how we have to keep going over the same ground to these people over and over again. Can't wait to see Big J's response to nuke ownership being brought up yet again.

Just from a mere cost-benefit perspective...

Bwahahahaha.

Now on my favorite list.

[Alien Space Bats]

Another drive by, this one on the Constitutionality of gun regulations.

I fail to see how gun bans are unconstitutional. It's the right to bear ARMS not GUNS. By this logic people should be allowed to obtain materials to build nuclear weapons as well as being able to buy pre-built nukes as they are arms. If it means you have a right to bear any type of arms then the gun nuts need to get their damn dirty paws off of my nukes! If it means only selected weapons then I guess the gun nuts had better realize that an arm is anything from a rock to a nuke and if they don't want me to have a nuke then they probably shouldn't have their guns around me.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms existed in close connection with the ability of Congress and the several States to call up a levée of the citizenry in the form of an organized (i.e., "well regulated") Militia:

The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

— James C. McReynolds, J. (for the majority), United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a 'militia.'

'The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

— William O. Douglas, J. (dissenting), Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143 (1972)

Thus, the one thing we are not allowed to do is define "arms" in whatever (ridiculous) way we damned well please — whether that definition is intended to take away the ability of citizens to effectively arm themselves at all ("They can carry sticks and stones if they want") or to give private citizens the ability to arm themselves with everything under the sun ("Atomic bombs and weaponized smallpox are arms, too — so anyone who wants them ought to be able to have them").

Rather, if Miller has anything to say about it, we can generally carry those weapons of a sort in "common use" by members of "a well regulated Militia".

The consensus is that this means that Americans and entitled to own and keep equipment of the sort one would generally expect to see in the hands of a typical modern militia outfit — IOW, contemporary light infantry gear. This likely includes a wide assortment of long arms, handguns, and body armor; it does not necessarily extend to light infantry support weapons, however — since historically such arms have generally been procured for the militia by State and local government.

The Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones. Which means that it falls to the government—whether that be state or federal—to determine which arms you do have the right to bear. A single-shot pistol is still technically a firearm, after all.

Actually, legislatures would have an easier time banning single-shot pistols — or swords, pikes, halberds, and steel plate armor — on the grounds of obsolescence; in contrast, Miller would suggest that it's modern weapons with which the 2nd Amendment is largely concerned.

Gun control is unconstitutional and wrong.

That depends on the law being considered.

For example, rather than attempt to define which weapons are not permitted, Congress would do better than to define "militia arms", using its unquestionable authority to do so under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power... [t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

— Article I, Section 8, The United States Constitution

Under this clause, Congress could either

1. Enumerate a list of arms appropriate for use by the Militia, or
   
   
2. Delegate this authority to the Department of Defense, with appropriate oversight and review by Congress and/or the States.

To give you an example of how this might work out in practice, Congress could specify that "militia rifles" must be designed to safely and reliably accomodate NATO 5.56 × 45mm ammunition without excessive wear throughout the expected lifetime of the weapon (rifles designed to fire NATO 5.56 × 45mm ammunition can usually handle various rounds based on the .223 Remington cartridge without a problem; the isn't always true in reverse, however, since most .223 Remington rounds produce a lower chamber pressure than do NATO 5.56 × 45mm rounds).

The purpose of such a specification would be to ensure that the Militia can generally use the same ammunition as the military at large; no sane judge would rule that Congress had no authority to set such logistical standards for the military, including the Militia — especially with the plain language of Article I, Section 8 at their backs.

Once such definition was on the books, either as a direct Congressional mandate or as a regulation issued in the name of Congress under the authority of the Department of Defense, then following the logic of Miller both the States and the Federal government could issue restrictions on fireams that didn't make the list (such as AK derivates, which often use either Russian 5.45 × 39mm or [in older models] Russian/Soviet 7.62 × 39mm ammuniton). Indeed, if Congress wanted to, it could probably go so far as to "specify" an actual, formal list of "approved" long arm and handgun models that should be considered "appropriate" for Militia use — and then restrict everything not on the list — so long as their choices can be defended on the grounds of reasonable and accepted military practice (including the need to standardize the list of weapons in use for logistical purposes).

There are other ways in which both Congress and the States could use their power under Article I, Section 8 to regulate firearms ownership and use; they key here is that there would always have to be some way for able-bodied, law-abiding private citizens of military age to arm themselves in accordance with "militia standards" — and the standards would have to be drawn up in such a way as to allow it the ability to function in its historical role as an effective force for local defense and the maintenance of order in time of emergency — IOW, in such a way as to be capable of fulfilling the mission inherently assigned to them in the line preceding the one I've quoted above:

The Congress shall have power... [t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

— Article I, Section 8, The United States Constitution

In short, whatever the Federal government does, it has to leave people the right to arm themselves up to something like a modern light infantry standard. It can specify how it wants them armed, and dictate some of the specifics of how the have to comport themselves while armed; but it has to leave them the right to arm, one way or the other.

Isn't the core of this whole argument easily collected into two major issues?

1. What level of weapons restrictions are we willing to accept to reduce or eliminate their use in crime
2. what level of weapons restrictions hampers the people's ability to resist the monopoly of power possessed by the state apparatus.

If we take these two issues, and argue each, eventually we should arrive at an intersection which represents the lowest common denominator between the two.

For example;

Weapons that are useful in fighting against the government in ranked by what I consider their presumed usefulness: Assault Rifles, Semi Automatic Rifles, Ground to air Missiles, Anti-Tank missiles,Grenades, HMGs, LMGs, Bolt and Lever action rifles, Shotguns, Pistols.

Weapons that are useful for criminals for petty, minor crimes, and limited murder: Pistols, Shotguns, Rifles of any kind, LMGs, HMGs, Explosive stuff.
Weapons useful for causing mass mayhem: Explosive stuff, HGMs, LMGs, Assault Rifles, Semi-Auto rifles, Shotguns, Pistols, Bolt and Lever action rifles.

Seeing as mass mayhem is uncommon, and the vast majority of criminal actions involving firearms tend to be handguns; handguns would be an obvious place to start. While handguns are not going to be very useful in an anti-government campaign of any kind. Thus limiting or eliminating access to handguns is entirely acceptable.

Discuss.

You misunderstand the nature of your right to bear arms, as manifested through District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

Specifically, you are laboring under the misapprehension, promulgated largely (thought not exclusively) by whack-jobs like those at the NRA, that the 2nd Amendment requires the government to let you possess the means required to stage a successful revolution against it — and thereby overturn the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box, through force applied by a small but violent clique of armed fanatics.

The 2nd Amendment, in its "primal" (i.e., its pre-1868 form) merely took firearm regulation out of the hands of the Federal government (though not completely, as we can see from Article I, Section 8 [above]). States could still (and did) restrict firearm ownership by their residents (a common antebellum example being laws prohibiting free blacks from owning, carrying, or using arms of any kind).

After the Civil War, the Southern States sought to reduce their recently freed black slaves to virtual servitude by taking away their civil rights. The 39th United States Congress, being in no mood for such horseshit, enacted the 14th Amendment with the specific intention of ensuring civil rights to freedmen. Although the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently chose to interpret the 14th Amendment in such a way as to greatly diminish its power (thereby allowing the Southern States to go ahead and rob their former slaves of their liberty, as had they sought to all along), Congress posthumously got the last laugh when later Supreme Courts came to apply the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause expansively, thereby incorporating the Bill of Rights.

In its new post-1868 form, then, the 2nd Amendment affords to all Americans the right to firearm ownership as an individual right. This right, again, is not provided for the purpose of letting Americans "off the pigs" or "overthrow ZOG"; it is provided for the general purpose of self-defense (or, extending the concept of self-defense logically, to the defense of one's home, one's family, one's neighbors, and even complete strangers in need one may happen across, where such action is appropriate).

It is here is where your analysis falls flat on its face. Handguns are the single most useful weapon available for personal defense, and are (arguably) one of the two or three most useful weapons available for home defense. As banning them would strike directly at the heart of the primary purpose to having privately owned arms under our Constitution, handguns must be permitted under law. and permitted in a generally non-discriminatory fashion. They may still be regulated, of course; but regulation must not be so excessive as to deny those who own or seek to own them legal use — including and most especially for the aforementioned purpose of serving as defensive weapons.

The most that Congress can do, then — as indicated above — is to specify certain kinds of handguns as "appropriate for militia use" (eg., by requiring "militia handguns" to be capable of firing 9 × 19mm Parabellum, for the sake of logistical compatibility with the rest of the American military), thereby exposing weapons that don't fit the standard to a potential ban. Even then, handguns (given their historical role as our primary means of personal defense) might not be susceptible to a general ban or to many restrictions; in the cited case (of Congress specifying 9 × 19mm Parabellum as "standard" ammunition for a "militia handgun", it might well turn out that smaller caliber guns must still be made available for the sake of people for whom such a weapon would be inappropriate, just as carbines were once created for persons form whom a full rifle was considered inappropriate; it would be up to the Courts to decide if this was the case (although Congress could still turn around and respond with new specifications that met the needs of those requiring smaller caliber weapons, thereby partially overriding the Court in this matter).

I feel like I want to throw in my 2 cents. The right to bear arms is for the express purpose of throwing off a corrupt and oppressive government.

Again, you are simply wrong. And more than that, even if you're not, your assertion is irrelevant.

Go ahead and quote as many "Founding Fathers" as you want; as anyone who knows anything about Constitutional law will tell you, "original intent" is bullshit. Thus, while it may well be true that the "purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was to permit armed citizens to overthrow the government, there's nothing in the text of the Constitution to support such a role for the "Militia" — and thus, there is no foundation in our Constitutional jurisprudence for asserting that our government must indulge childish fantasies of armed insurrection by making sure its citizens can win, should they ever take up arms against their lawfully constituted government.

Don't believe me? Consider the wording of the 2nd Amendment itself:

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.

— Amendment II, The United States Constitution

Notice the use of the word "security".

The amendment doesn't say that the Militia is necessary to preserve liberty; it does not say that the Militia is necessary to forestall tyranny; it says nothing at all to suggest that the goal of having a Militia is to overthrow the government or fight off law enforcement agencies or officials gone bad. It says that the Militia is necessary to "the security of a free state". IOW, it speaks to a need for defense, and not a need to hold an otherwise unrestrained government in check.

Then, too, go back and look at Article I, Section 8, as cited above:

The Congress shall have power... [t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

— Article I, Section 8, The United States Constitution

So let's see... It sounds like the role of the Militia, under the Constitution, is to defend the country, assist the police, and put down rebellions (rather than starting them). So is there anything else about the Militia in the Constitution — anything we might be missing?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

— Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, The United States Constitution

So the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief of the Militia "when called into the actual Service of the United States", even though Article 1, Section 8 specifies that "the Appointment of [its] Officers, and the Authority of [its] training" are to be "reserv[ed] to the States", albeit "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

<pause>

So if they're legally answerable to the President, commanded by officers appointed by the States, and subject to call-up by Congress in the event of an insurrection, under precisely what legal authority are they supposed to have the right to overthrow the government?

<pause>

Yeah, they don't. They really don't. Not even in the "in the event of fire, break glass" sense. They're there to help defend the country, and not to overthrow the government — and "original intent" can go get fucked.

Such a government is likely to manifest itself, if we continue on our present course

This is not the proper thread in which to discuss Republican wet dreams of subverting the lawfully elected government and transforming the Nation into a right-wing Third World Hell-hole. Fortunately, I trust the military enough to believe they would stop such a scheme in its tracks were it attempted.

Move on, please...

It was solely protected so that the American people could retain their independence through revolution should the need arise.

Again, this is pure and utter horseshit. Nothing in the text of the Constitution nor in our jurisprudence supports such an assertion, as I have shown above.

Therefore, with that purpose in mind, I believe that at least smallarms (pistols through ARs) of equal caliber to that of our military should be 100% legal for a person with the proper licenses and potentially psych screening.

Your opinion is noted. That said, the logical means by which you came to it are utterly worthless.

Very well, then. Do you have a BETTER way to ensure that the people remain an effective check against what would otherwise be a government monopoly on violence?

Well, we could place the National Guard under the executive authority of the Nation's many State governors (which we already do, so check), and then we could place the Nation's municipal police forces under local governmental control (which we also already do, so check that off as well). That sort of subdivision of military and paramilitary capabilities would make it exceedingly difficult for any single center of political authority within the United States to unlawfully exert its authority on others, especially if — and I would strongly recommend this — the U.S. Army's counter-insurgency capabilities were principally invested in the National Guard (where they properly belong).

That said (t)he lack of rational reason for a renewed FAWB and the common use of the weapons today I think the current court would rule the ban unconstitutional.

I would agree. If the new AWB targeted weapons that could easily be upgraded or converted to full automatic use, or relied on some other objective standard that was clearly defined and consistently applied (eg., sustained ROF above a certain level), it might stand a chance. But the sheer arbitrariness of Feinstein's list and her lack of legal justification for the choices embodied in that list are, I suspect, going to kill her effort.

She'd have more success just going for a new FFL class, to be applied to all semi-automatic weapons. That would amount to a de facto ban for a great many people (due to the cost and difficulty of clearing such a hurdle), and do so with fewer 14th Amendment problems. Granted, such a move would still face potential challenge under Heller — due to the "common" nature of semi-automatic weapons — and might even place current restrictions on automatic weapons in danger (should the Court decide it didn't like such a scheme), but at least it wouldn't fall over dead immediately due to its failure to meet even a perfunctory rational basis test.

With the precedent of the '94 AWB, I think this legislation would be ruled constitutional, though the bill's effective banning of semi-auto handguns would get a long look in light of SCOTUS's recent rulings.

I disagree. The '94 AWB was never subjected to the level of scrutiny required in light of Heller, as Heller came after the '94 AWB had expired.

Simple : ban them all. And screw the constitution, a piece of paper written 200 years ago shouldn't prevent from doing what is right now. It's time the US, like all other democracies do, change its constitution every few decades, so it reflects the constraints and issues of its time. As the French revolutionnaries said : « Un peuple a toujours le droit de revoir, de réformer et de changer sa Constitution. Une génération ne peut assujettir à ses lois les générations futures.» (« A people always has the right to modify, reform and change its Constitution. No generation can impose its laws to the future generations. »)

Fuck, we can't even pass a God-damned budget; what makes you think we can debate a new Constitution without ending up in a knock-down drag-out civil war?

[Republica Newland]

Well for the longest time for me going way back to the 70's there has always been this non issue of private sales being allowed and that this somehow is detrimental to society when it isn't. The right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from govt meddling.

so I should be able to sell uranium to al qaeda if I so choose?

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

[Ovisterra]

It has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Indeed. Gotta love how we have to keep going over the same ground to these people over and over again. Can't wait to see Big J's response to nuke ownership being brought up yet again.

In this case, nuke ownership was brought up in reference to unregulated capitalism rather than gun rights, so it's not the same ground at all.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. Gotta love how we have to keep going over the same ground to these people over and over again. Can't wait to see Big J's response to nuke ownership being brought up yet again.

In this case, nuke ownership was brought up in reference to unregulated capitalism rather than gun rights, so it's not the same ground at all.

And why would I comment on it?

[Ovisterra]

In this case, nuke ownership was brought up in reference to unregulated capitalism rather than gun rights, so it's not the same ground at all.

And why would I comment on it?

You shouldn't, really. It's not very relevant to the thread.

[Big Jim P]

so I should be able to sell uranium to al qaeda if I so choose?

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

This is an example of why we need to protect our right to bear arms. Forget the "overthrow the government" or "guns must be banned, they do no good" bullshit.

[Big Jim P]

And why would I comment on it?

You shouldn't, really. It's not very relevant to the thread.

True. Still, I wonder why my name was brought up.

[Ovisterra]

You shouldn't, really. It's not very relevant to the thread.

True. Still, I wonder why my name was brought up.

Don't look at me.

[Republica Newland]

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

This is an example of why we need to protect our right to bear arms. Forget the "overthrow the government" or "guns must be banned, they do no good" bullshit.

Too bad you don't see media coverage like that influencing American politics,all the Dem's are good at is drooling over how well another school shooting helps to push their agenda.

[Big Jim P]

True. Still, I wonder why my name was brought up.

Don't look at me.

I saw who brought up my name. *nod*

[Big Jim P]

This is an example of why we need to protect our right to bear arms. Forget the "overthrow the government" or "guns must be banned, they do no good" bullshit.

Too bad you don't see media coverage like that influencing American politics,all the Dem's are good at is drooling over how well another school shooting helps to push their agenda.

Of course you don't, for the reason you alluded to.

[Ovisterra]

so I should be able to sell uranium to al qaeda if I so choose?

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

In fairness, trying to discredit everyone who's against gun rights because of that post is a little silly. I advocate the banning of guns, and none of my arguments have ever had anything to do with tanks, nukes or race.

[AiliailiA]

Well for the longest time for me going way back to the 70's there has always been this non issue of private sales being allowed and that this somehow is detrimental to society when it isn't. The right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from govt meddling.

so I should be able to sell uranium to al qaeda if I so choose?

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

I see one of you saying "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling".

The logical consequence of that is that you literally could buy tanks or nukes. You could sell them to al quaida. The question is entirely relevant, and logically valid to challeng Grinning Dragon's assertion.

Do YOU agree that "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling" ?

[Big Jim P]

Well for the longest time for me going way back to the 70's there has always been this non issue of private sales being allowed and that this somehow is detrimental to society when it isn't. The right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from govt meddling.

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

I see one of you saying "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling".

The logical consequence of that is that you literally could buy tanks or nukes. You could sell them to al quaida. The question is entirely relevant, and logically valid to challeng Grinning Dragon's assertion.

Do YOU agree that "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling" ?

I believe you can buy de-militarized tanks, and even collect them. I am not sure, and no I will not look up a source as this is simply MY opinion.

Nukes? I would fully support the private ownership of nukes, just as soon as someone can present a feasible way they could be used in personal self-defense. Until then we all should just STFU about nukes. This thread is about guns, for Satans sake.

[Big Jim P]

Fucking hell.. cut it out already I DIDN'T KNOW GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE ADVOCATING FOR MILITARY HARDWARE AND NUKE RIGHTS THEY WERE ADVOCATING GUN RIGHTS. DO you see us going against laws that restrict shit such as tanks or nukes? No? Didn't think so either. Now stop diverting the argument. It's either this or the race card,you people obviously fail at making decent point so you resort to unrelated bullshit.

In fairness, trying to discredit everyone who's against gun rights because of that post is a little silly. I advocate the banning of guns, and none of my arguments have ever had anything to do with tanks, nukes or race.

The arguments for banning guns are all well and good, but they do not address the basic issue: the predatory nature of humanity. As long as there are those members of the species that will prey on the innocent (with guns, knives, blunt objects, or bare hands), then it behooves us as a society to insure that victims can defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary.

[AiliailiA]

I see one of you saying "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling".

The logical consequence of that is that you literally could buy tanks or nukes. You could sell them to al quaida. The question is entirely relevant, and logically valid to challeng Grinning Dragon's assertion.

Do YOU agree that "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling" ?

I believe you can buy de-militarized tanks, and even collect them. I am not sure, and no I will not look up a source as this is simply MY opinion.

Nukes? I would fully support the private ownership of nukes, just as soon as someone can present a feasible way they could be used in personal self-defense. Until then we all should just STFU about nukes. This thread is about guns, for Satans sake.

It's a very broad claim, put forward to justify unrecorded private gun sales without background check. It has other consequences (being such a broad claim) and pointing those out is perfectly legitimate debate technique.

I can't even imagine why you're defending "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling". If you can't admit that someone on the gun rights side might have been wrong about something, why not just let it pass in silence?

Or do you agree with it?

[Big Jim P]

I believe you can buy de-militarized tanks, and even collect them. I am not sure, and no I will not look up a source as this is simply MY opinion.

Nukes? I would fully support the private ownership of nukes, just as soon as someone can present a feasible way they could be used in personal self-defense. Until then we all should just STFU about nukes. This thread is about guns, for Satans sake.

It's a very broad claim, put forward to justify unrecorded private gun sales without background check. It has other consequences (being such a broad claim) and pointing those out is perfectly legitimate debate technique.

I can't even imagine why you're defending "the right to buy and sell private property should be left alone and far from government meddling". If you can't admit that someone on the gun rights side might have been wrong about something, why not just let it pass in silence?

Or do you agree with it?

Some are wrong and what am I supposedly agreeing with now? Read what I post, not what you think I post.

[AiliailiA]

In fairness, trying to discredit everyone who's against gun rights because of that post is a little silly. I advocate the banning of guns, and none of my arguments have ever had anything to do with tanks, nukes or race.

The arguments for banning guns are all well and good, but they do not address the basic issue: the predatory nature of humanity. As long as there are those members of the species that will prey on the innocent (with guns, knives, blunt objects, or bare hands), then it behooves us as a society to insure that victims can defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary.

To insure that any potential victim can defend themselves with a gun, you'd have to provide a gun to any citizen who can't afford to buy one. Yeah or Nay to that?