I could say so much, but i did promise not to be an ass. Ill just leave it at this, and move on: You are clueless about the concept of rights. Our founding fathers would be ashamed.
Dont be like that, you said we have a right to nukes, biological and chemical weapons and then tried to put it on my shoulders to convince you otherwise.Now you are fuming? I can listen to you, but can you listen to others?
Dont be like that, you said we have a right to nukes, biological and chemical weapons and then tried to put it on my shoulders to convince you otherwise.Now you are fuming? I can listen to you, but can you listen to others?
Not fuming at all. Just showing restraint
You also said 'right to kill mass people'. That isn't what the 2nd amendment even talks about. It talks about the right to bear arms, not killing people.
You also said 'right to kill mass people'. That isn't what the 2nd amendment even talks about. It talks about the right to bear arms, not killing people.
EXACTLY: and simple matter of deduction says we DO NOT have the right to own weapons who's sole purpose is mass murder.
Can you provide an example of a weapon someone might find in a gun store that can ONLY be used for mass murder?
Where can I buy nukes, biological and chemical "weapons" in America? Outside of the stuff that is already there, I cant. You answer this and I will answer your question?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-20-2014).]
It's not up to me to prove or show you that we have the "right" to kill masses of people. I already know this IS NOT true.
This a VERY simple case of deduction. A weapon that only has one purpose (mass killing) IS not a right. I would be up to YOU to convince me and others that the Constitution grants Americans the right to own possess weapons that have a sole purpose of killing indescriminatly masses of people.
We're on the same page here but it's that pesky "shall not be infringed" clause that is the problem. It gets tossed out there when someone doesn't want their arms ownership limited but it's conveniently ignored when they want to restrict others (felons, sixth-graders, Hawaiians.) It's both clear and vague depending on their personal wants. The supreme court has already decoupled the militia responsibility of possessing arms to the satisfaction of those that want guns but no obligation so why not decouple the infringement too. The 2nd amendment might as well be three separate sentences but for some odd and unknown reason it isn't. It's a mystery.
No such idea as WMD. This is one of those things you just have use common sense. Besides,WMD can be argued to be defensive but they are only used in as offensive.
You can't actually use a nuke as defense. Deterrent is as close you going to get.
No such idea as WMD. This is one of those things you just have use common sense. Besides,WMD can be argued to be defensive but they are only used in as offensive.
You can't actually use a nuke as defense. Deterrent is as close you going to get.
The 2nd Amendment exists as a way of defense.
This is as much of an opinion as any of yellowstones. If you want to say the Constitution advocates mass murder then the proof of it's intentions are yours to provide.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-21-2014).]
Murder is muder, wether it is one person or a milion people. The Constitution does NOT give us the RIGHT to do it, OR give us the tools to do it legally. The Constitution grants us the RIGHT to protect our selfs and families. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL OTHERS FOR NO REASON. IT IS SIMPLE REASONING THAT WE DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN, POSES, OR USE WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER OR DESTRUCTION. Simple for the sober thinker to understand. No legal experience needed. YOU JUST CANT KILL PEOPLE FOR FUN OR NO REASON. Weapons of mass destruction DO exist and YOU dont have the "right" to own them OR use them.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-21-2014).]
Can you provide an example of a weapon someone might find in a gun store that can ONLY be used for mass murder?
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Where can I buy nukes, biological and chemical "weapons" in America? Outside of the stuff that is already there, I cant. You answer this and I will answer your question?
As a former police officer and someone who dealt with real world realities of this issue, and not some lame brain left wing theory......these laws do NOTHING to prevent crime. Gun laws restrict only law abiding citizens, that is all. They have never prevented a shooting and will never prevent one. Even in countries where guns are outright banned, they still exist and are used in crime. Anyone who says differently lives in a fantasy world and is void of common sense. They are a waste of time.
We're on the same page here but it's that pesky "shall not be infringed" clause that is the problem. It gets tossed out there when someone doesn't want their arms ownership limited but it's conveniently ignored when they want to restrict others (felons, sixth-graders, Hawaiians.) It's both clear and vague depending on their personal wants. The supreme court has already decoupled the militia responsibility of possessing arms to the satisfaction of those that want guns but no obligation so why not decouple the infringement too. The 2nd amendment might as well be three separate sentences but for some odd and unknown reason it isn't. It's a mystery.
That is why you should read the founders papers, to understand the intent.
Murder is muder, wether it is one person or a milion people. The Constitution does NOT give us the RIGHT to do it, OR give us the tools to do it legally. The Constitution grants us the RIGHT to protect our selfs and families. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL OTHERS FOR NO REASON. IT IS SIMPLE REASONING THAT WE DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN, POSES, OR USE WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER OR DESTRUCTION. Simple for the sober thinker to understand. No legal experience needed. YOU JUST CANT KILL PEOPLE FOR FUN OR NO REASON. Weapons of mass destruction DO exist and YOU dont have the "right" to own them OR use them.
Don't confuse homicide with murder. The Constitution doesn't "grant rights." It enumerates rights government is forbidden to restrict. No one ever suggested the Constitution allows for killing without cause. This goes back to the homicide/murder difference. As for the WMD red herring, there are many weapons people are not "allowed" to own by law, which has nothing to do with whether or not the Constitution specifically allows them or not. Without a SCOTUS ruling, any argument is little more than speculation.
This is as much of an opinion as any of yellowstones. If you want to say the Constitution advocates mass murder then the proof of it's intentions are yours to provide.
No it is not an opinion. It is a fact. The 2nd does not grant any right to offend or defend. It simply protects MY RIGHT to defend.
NUKES have no defensive capability. They are wholly offensive. They destroy indiscriminately. That is what a Weapon of mass destruction does.
The 2nd refers to Arms for defense by the common man,All men. There are many instances were the architects state as much.
The right to be offensive can not be granted. No right can be granted ,only protected.
If some ****ing whack thinks he has the Right to have a nuke then thankfully the 2nd protects me to have arms to take him down.
The notion of owning WMD (nukes, biological and chemical weapons ) has been brought up as a Constitutional right. I clearly disagree with that notion. To use a WMD would be an act of randomly murdering people as a result of there horrible inaccuracy and mass destruction. And BTW, explosives are illegal as well for the same reasons.
And BTW, explosives are illegal as well for the same reasons.
Tell that to my grandfather who used TNT all the time on the farm. And for the record "explosives" are not illegal. Some classes are restricted, but the general idea of 'explosive' is not.
Plus no one here is talking about 'mass killing' of citizens as a hobby, the amendment is about defending yourself against an aggressor, primarily a tyrannical government. If you wipe out a standing army of this aggressor, its part of war, and the means to do so is protected.
Tell that to my grandfather who used TNT all the time on the farm. And for the record "explosives" are not illegal. Some classes are restricted, but the general idea of 'explosive' is not.
Plus no one here is talking about 'mass killing' of citizens as a hobby, the amendment is about defending yourself against an aggressor, primarily a tyrannical government. If you wipe out a standing army of this aggressor, its part of war, and the means to do so is protected.
So are you saying we have the Constitutional right to wage war against the USA and unleash WMD on our own brothers, sisters and nuke gas and biocantaminate babies because YOU feel wronged by the Gov. I disagree with you. We can own guns AND that right is not supposed to be infringed upon. We are also at war against terrorists who want to terrorize America with the threat of WMD No grey area here, if you think you have the right to own biological and chemical weapons, then you should take this up with the Government when you try to flex your 2nd Amendment "right"to buy them.
So are you saying we have the Constitutional right to wage war against the USA and unleash WMD on our own brothers, sisters and nuke gas and biocantaminate babies because YOU feel wronged by the Gov..
You **really** need to read up on our independence, and our founders writings that go along with it. Until this happens, continuing is really pointless as you are clearly clueless of what the Constitution stands for and why it exists in the first place. ( and this time i really am done, i came back and tried to explain it, but failed. Not going to expend any more energy on it. )
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-22-2014).]
Originally posted by User00013170: You **really** need to read up on our independence, and our founders writings that go along with it. Until this happens, continuing is really pointless as you are clearly clueless of what the Constitution stands for and why it exists in the first place. ( and this time i really am done, i came back and tried to explain it, but failed. Not going to expend any more energy on it. )
Are you saying that WMDs are illegally (unconstitutionally ) restricted and thus we have an oppressive Government?
Please do as i suggested. Once you are done we can continue.
I believe that begins "When in the course of human events........."
quote
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
[b]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
It is upon this foundation that this nation was founded. It is UNALIENABLE, and for the largest part of the current (and past) population, it is and always has been---self evident. Very very few, "don't get it".
Please do as i suggested. Once you are done we can continue.
Feel free to point out where you come to your conclusion. To just tell me to go read, does nothing when I am in agreement with the Constitution and it's amendments, even though they are not perfect. I am secure knowing that on this issue, you have the misunderstanding.
