Stop Hiding. Let's vote!

[Accountable]

So what's this?


No paranoia. I voted based on how you presented it. This is getting old with you. I think we have better things to do then continuously butt heads.

Good God! You're so anxious to get in a shot that you're not even paying attention to yourself. It makes you look stupid.

I wanted to make it as simple as possible, so that we could discuss the issue without discussing the semantics, accusations of hidden agendas, or people thinking there's some kind of "trick". So I figured that the best way to do it would be to go to where this exact thing has already happened. So I went to the 20th Amendment, copied the part that repealed the 18th Amendment, and altered only the one word to make it fit this conversation.

So there's your explanation. It's your paranoia that's built all this. I hope I've soothed that. If not, fuck off.
If you do want to discuss repealing the Second Amendment, let's do that.

 

[robdawg1]

the right for the people to keep and bear arms for a well armed militia is what the national guard is for...we have a state by state well armed militia, joe schmoe next door isnt going to overthrow the gov't with his ak's and ar's and ballistic hollow points....just saying....

 

[robdawg1]

by the way i am vote #3 for yea....

 

[The Man]

Would you be willing to give up your weapon then rob?

 

[robdawg1]

i dont have a personal weapon TM

 

[robdawg1]

also in clarification let me say, i don't think it will ever come to a full on gun ban for every kind of gun, but there is no reason that a common collector/citizen needs a fully auto assault weapon with infinite access to rounds or high capacity mags that allows him/her to do major damage at a given incident...

 

[Stone]

the right for the people to keep and bear arms for a well armed militia is what the national guard is for...we have a state by state well armed militia, joe schmoe next door isnt going to overthrow the gov't with his ak's and ar's and ballistic hollow points....just saying....

Just saying....the 2nd Amendment doesn't read 'for a well armed militia', it reads 'well regulated militia' and that relates to loyalty of militias, not their armament....it's of historical relevance at a time when our early government was worried about the impact of independent militias having more loyalty to their own regional causes and interests than a newly formed nation's liberty and independence.

So.....the 2nd Amendment wasn't just created to give the citizen the right to defend himself, his home and his country. It's a two part statement that includes the oversight of the actions of militias.

also in clarification let me say, i don't think it will ever come to a full on gun ban for every kind of gun, but there is no reason that a common collector/citizen needs a fully auto assault weapon with infinite access to rounds or high capacity mags that allows him/her to do major damage at a given incident...

I agree.....but gun debates are so polarized, that arguments are crafted in absolutes with little regard for pragmatic solutions.


I voted no to repeal the Second Amendment.

 

[Jackass master]

also in clarification let me say, i don't think it will ever come to a full on gun ban for every kind of gun, but there is no reason that a common collector/citizen needs a fully auto assault weapon with infinite access to rounds or high capacity mags that allows him/her to do major damage at a given incident...

First there is no full auto assault weapon. The whole terminology thing is propagated by the media for the misinformed populace. As far as access to round that should only be limited by my wallet. Far more folks are of the mindset that it will not lead to more bans down the road. Our government already has way too much power and has been trampling our rights more and more for the past 20 years. Do you really believe the Patriot act was to make us safer or to allow government to become even more intrusive in our lives with no checks on it? They regularly collect data on so much of our lives and folks either ignore it or are blissfully unaware of it. Cameras, drones,software to monitor internet keywords and a host of other activities all strip us of rights in little bites at a time.

 

[Accountable]

[...] I agree.....but gun debates are so polarized, that arguments are crafted in absolutes with little regard for pragmatic solutions.


I voted no to repeal the Second Amendment.

The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms.

 

[Stone]

The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms.

I see my comment went right over your head.....thanks.

 

[Accountable]

I see my comment went right over your head.....thanks.

Then explain it. How pragmatic can you get when dealing with "shall not be infringed"?

 

[Stone]

Then explain it. How pragmatic can you get when dealing with "shall not be infringed"?

Explain how my comments were directed at arguments rather than Constitutional Law?
Not my responsibility to introduce you to critical thinking.

How pragmatic can you get when dealing with "shall not be infringed"?

Indeed......the Constitution was designed to address the needs of social and technological change.
Your present challenge to me supports the irrational mentality of the right to own any conceivable weapon while you call for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Let's take the last of your comments.......with the repeal of the Second Amendment in the current mental status of the US, the likely outcome is a gun ban. So your thread is pretty much BULLSHIT as you try to pull off a devil's advocate argument you obviously can't win.

Your previous comment:

The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms.

is the argument for unrestricted ownership of weapons. Weapons....and with no restrictions, that includes military hardware from planes to tanks to even nuclear.......they are all means to arm oneself.
Obviously a nutter position.


So when I post 'pragmatic'.....it's a consideration of public safety, both of self defense and from imposition.......not the BS you've posted.


Does that help?
.

 

[Accountable]

Explain how my comments were directed at arguments rather than Constitutional Law?

The entire subject is about Constitutional Law. Any honest discussion about gun control in the US has to address the Second Amendment, which is written in absolute terms, not pragmatic ones.

Indeed......the Constitution was designed to address the needs of social and technological change.

and the amendment process was included so that the Constitution can change with society and technology.

Your present challenge to me supports the irrational mentality of the right to own any conceivable weapon while you call for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Let's take the last of your comments.......with the repeal of the Second Amendment in the current mental status of the US, the likely outcome is a gun ban. So your thread is pretty much BULLSHIT as you try to pull off a devil's advocate argument you obviously can't win.

Your claim in fear of a gun ban is bullshit, as you well know. That's why you only state it and make no attempt to support it. All evidence I've seen supports no such ban. Only a small minority calls for that. Not a "likely outcome" at all. A partial gun ban including scary-looking weapons is possible, especially since it's been done before. Fully-automatic machine guns are likewise banned without a full ban, so your bullshit is laid bare. My challenge is to honor the rule of law. If the Second Amendment is too absolute ... not pragmatic enough ... then we should change it. I personally would prefer to leave the whole issue to each state to decide.

Your previous comment:

is the argument for unrestricted ownership of weapons. Weapons....and with no restrictions, that includes military hardware from planes to tanks to even nuclear.......they are all means to arm oneself.
Obviously a nutter position.

The comment wasn't an argument at all. It was simple statement of fact. Do you dispute it? It's really easy to verify:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html

So when I post 'pragmatic'.....it's a consideration of public safety, both of self defense and from imposition.......not the BS you've posted.


Does that help?
.

It does help. Are you opposed to amending the Constitution to make it more pragmatic?

 

[Accountable]

also in clarification let me say, i don't think it will ever come to a full on gun ban for every kind of gun, but there is no reason that a common collector/citizen needs a fully auto assault weapon with infinite access to rounds or high capacity mags that allows him/her to do major damage at a given incident...

A right is not contingent upon need. It is a right.


Consider: Should you be required to justify a need to vote before you are permitted to vote?
Should you be required to justify a need to worship (or not) before you are permitted to worship (or not)?

 

[Stone]

The entire subject is about Constitutional Law. Any honest discussion about gun control in the US has to address the Second Amendment, which is written in absolute terms, not pragmatic ones.

and the amendment process was included so that the Constitution can change with society and technology.

Your claim in fear of a gun ban is bullshit, as you well know. That's why you only state it and make no attempt to support it. All evidence I've seen supports no such ban. Only a small minority calls for that. Not a "likely outcome" at all. A partial gun ban including scary-looking weapons is possible, especially since it's been done before. Fully-automatic machine guns are likewise banned without a full ban, so your bullshit is laid bare. My challenge is to honor the rule of law. If the Second Amendment is too absolute ... not pragmatic enough ... then we should change it. I personally would prefer to leave the whole issue to each state to decide.

The comment wasn't an argument at all. It was simple statement of fact. Do you dispute it? It's really easy to verify:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html

It does help. Are you opposed to amending the Constitution to make it more pragmatic?

The entire subject is about Constitutional Law.

And you argue to repeal the Second Amendment.
That is a defacto argument for absolute gun control whether it's your intention or not.

Any honest discussion about gun control in the US has to address the Second Amendment, which is written in absolute terms, not pragmatic ones.

And any alteration to the Second Amendment needs to consider the real issues that society faces....not the absolutism of the past you are trying to impose in this thread.

Your claim in fear of a gun ban is bullshit, as you well know.

It is a logical reality if you were to achieve the repeal of the Second Amendment, as you argued.

That's why you only state it and make no attempt to support it.

Bullshit.......the US is quite divided over the issue of gun ownership.

All evidence I've seen supports no such ban.

And that makes your argument to repeal the Second Amendment specious. A bullshit argument based on pretense rather than an argument to rectify with change.

A partial gun ban including scary-looking weapons is possible, especially since it's been done before.

To a liberal, all guns are 'scary-looking'.....more bullshit.

Fully-automatic machine guns are likewise banned without a full ban, so your bullshit is laid bare.

It's your argument to repeal the Second Amendment....not mine.
Now you're simply being dishonest with the forum.

My challenge is to honor the rule of law.

As posted before......your thread is a BULLSHIT devil's advocate argument.
Not even a convincing, let alone a good one :cool

Amendment is too absolute ... not pragmatic enough ... then we should change it.

WOW!.....just like that other BULLSHITTER........your argument isn't working so you adjust it to meet the convenience of the debate.
NO......you argued to repeal the Second Amendment, not amend it.

The comment wasn't an argument at all. It was simple statement of fact. Do you dispute it? It's really easy to verify:

There you go again........I referred to the arguments with regard to discussing gun control in a pragmatic manner, not how we interpret the Constitution to suit our selves.
Just more libertarian bullshit!

It does help. Are you opposed to amending the Constitution to make it more pragmatic?

How the hell can you post such garbage when you posted you wanted the Second Amendment repealed?
You called for the repeal of the Second Amendment and avoided Francis' question about rewriting the Constitution.


And you posted this:

LOL. I debated with myself about whether to make it public, but some people are afraid to state their opinions even anonymously. A public poll would scare a lot of people away.

I voted Yea so that no one would shy away because they didn't want to be the only one, but also for legalistic reasons. Think you can guess why, or do you want me to just lay it out there?

If you are gong to repeal the Second Amendment and not do a rewrite.....you just gave up the right to bear arms, of any kind........what were you thinking?


BULLSHIT.

 

[Stone]

A right is not contingent upon need. It is a right.


Consider: Should you be required to justify a need to vote before you are permitted to vote?
Should you be required to justify a need to worship (or not) before you are permitted to worship (or not)?

Consider......replace 'gun' with 'nuclear weapon' and try making the same argument.

(Pragmatism getting the way? )

 

[Minor Axis]

also in clarification let me say, i don't think it will ever come to a full on gun ban for every kind of gun, but there is no reason that a common collector/citizen needs a fully auto assault weapon with infinite access to rounds or high capacity mags that allows him/her to do major damage at a given incident...

A voice of reason.

Do you really believe the Patriot act was to make us safer or to allow government to become even more intrusive in our lives with no checks on it?

The Partriot Act is a knee-jerk reaction to make us safer by becoming more intrusive in our lives. PS, I don't support many of its provisions.

 

[Accountable]

The Partriot Act is a knee-jerk reaction to make us safer by becoming more intrusive in our lives. PS, I don't support many of its provisions.

Yes, and so is this background check on all gun sales, albeit to a lesser degree. I don't support any of the Patriot Acts provisions. The whole thing needs to be scrapped as the unconstitutional POS that it is.

 

[The Man]

i dont have a personal weapon TM

Would you be willing to give up your weapon?{whether personal weapon or not}

 

[The Man]

Something else I just as well add while I am at it.
Most guns are never used in a crime...its either sport or hunting.
Then those that never get used and are for home safety in the rare event something does happen.
Then there is the question do we need guns.
The hunters will tell you yes...the farmers will tell you yes.
How many million deer alone are shot each year?...it will be several million..kind of hard to shoot them without guns.

Next is the argument of guns being a deterrent of crime.
True....thus the reason rural crimes are low...fear of getting your butt blowed away by stealing gas etc.
I hate to see innocent people die just like the rest of us,but guns do have their place in society.