Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mother Cocanuts

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

248 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Why stop at guns? The second amendment says "arms".

Let people buy, sell and keep nuclear missiles. Nobody would dare rob your house if you could raze their entire city in retribution. This would also bring the prices down and make it easier for the government to buy them.

Similarly, kids should be issued with guns in schools. The second amendment also says "the right of the people" and children are - incredibly - people.

When the second amendment was written it wasn't exclusive to guns. It included pikes and swords - weapons that were used during the revolutionary war against England. Guns only formed part of the arsenal. How come Americans aren't focusing on the fact that they are - to the letter of the law - allowed to have nuclear weapons? Come on guys, that's just slack.

...

Or maybe the Founding Fathers made a mistake...? Like that whole 3/5 of a person thing? And maybe... that mistake is long overdue for a change.

I think it says bare arms.    I support everyone's right to go sleeveless!

 

 

I do hope I'm blocked.  Its a cool club to be in.

Edited by Pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yukle said:

Why stop at guns? The second amendment says "arms".

Let people buy, sell and keep nuclear missiles. Nobody would dare rob your house if you could raze their entire city in retribution. This would also bring the prices down and make it easier for the government to buy them.

Similarly, kids should be issued with guns in schools. The second amendment also says "the right of the people" and children are - incredibly - people.

When the second amendment was written it wasn't exclusive to guns. It included pikes and swords - weapons that were used during the revolutionary war against England. Guns only formed part of the arsenal. How come Americans aren't focusing on the fact that they are - to the letter of the law - allowed to have nuclear weapons? Come on guys, that's just slack.

Interesting point.

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

Or maybe the Founding Fathers made a mistake...? Like that whole 3/5 of a person thing? And maybe... that mistake is long overdue for a change.

The two are not comparable. One violated a human right, while the other doesn't.

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

We've probably discussed this from enough angles there's not much else left to say.

From the participating members? There probably isn't much left to say since many (most) are dead-set in their stance. Nevertheless, the thread is open to those who wish to submit their thoughts even if there's a possibility of redundancy.

2 hours ago, Pebble said:

I do hope I'm blocked.  Its a cool club to be in.

Why would you hope that you're blocked? You haven't really given me a reason to. And I think I've had one or two exchanges with you, none which consisted of attempted insults. Kind of a weird club to be inducted into really. But to each her own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yukle said:

On second thoughts, I've lost enthusiasm. I think that everything that can be said, has been said. I like that, for the most part, people haven't resorted to the childish, "I'M STILL POSTING AND YOU'RE NOT SO THAT MEANS I WIN!"

We've probably discussed this from enough angles there's not much else left to say. Diversity of opinion on the Internet and we've not all blocked each other or mentioned Hitler (Oops... :P ).

Here, here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/singalong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yukle said:

Why stop at guns? The second amendment says "arms".

Let people buy, sell and keep nuclear missiles. Nobody would dare rob your house if you could raze their entire city in retribution. This would also bring the prices down and make it easier for the government to buy them.

Similarly, kids should be issued with guns in schools. The second amendment also says "the right of the people" and children are - incredibly - people.

When the second amendment was written it wasn't exclusive to guns. It included pikes and swords - weapons that were used during the revolutionary war against England. Guns only formed part of the arsenal. How come Americans aren't focusing on the fact that they are - to the letter of the law - allowed to have nuclear weapons? Come on guys, that's just slack.

...

Or maybe the Founding Fathers made a mistake...? Like that whole 3/5 of a person thing? And maybe... that mistake is long overdue for a change.

Keep and "bear".  There is some question that the "bear" portion of the 2nd amendment restricts access to the general public for "team operated" weapons like fully on belt feed machine guns, artillery, and nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Keep and "bear".  There is some question that the "bear" portion of the 2nd amendment restricts access to the general public for "team operated" weapons like fully on belt feed machine guns, artillery, and nuclear weapons.

So it doesn’t preclude arming trained bears? Cause I’m seeing a loophole here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Antonius Pius said:

So it doesn’t preclude arming trained bears? Cause I’m seeing a loophole here.

I'll quote Robin Williams:

You have the right to bear arms or the right to arm bears... whatever the fuck you want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Antonius Pius said:

So it doesn’t preclude arming trained bears? Cause I’m seeing a loophole here.

I'll quote Robin Williams:

You have the right to bear arms or the right to arm bears... whatever the fuck you want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure flame throwers are legal in some states (and illegal in others).

Whatever that says of the 2nd amendment, I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/BearArms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm pretty sure flame throwers are legal in some states (and illegal in others).

Whatever that says of the 2nd amendment, I'm not sure.

It's how I plow my driveway out in Winter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Keep and "bear".  There is some question that the "bear" portion of the 2nd amendment restricts access to the general public for "team operated" weapons like fully on belt feed machine guns, artillery, and nuclear weapons.

Please expand, Ser Scot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Please expand, Ser Scot.

I have heard, but I've never been able to find a case, that the SCOTUS has held that the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to weapons that cannot be "borne" by and individual.  Hence it only protects the right to own pistols and long rifles.  Team operated weapons, full machine guns (belt feed), artillery, tanks, and missiles are considered "team operated" weapons and thus not protected by the express terms of the 2nd amendment.  

I don't have time to go digging right now but I seem to remember an interview with Scalia where he laughed about people trying to claim the 2nd should apply to more than pistols and rifles because of this limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ser Scot A Ellison

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/

Quote

Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans an individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The prefatory clause to which the justice refers, of course, is the one about “a well-regulated militia.” The AR-15, used in San Bernardino, is an M-16 knockoff.

So rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”

Of course, irrelevant to any discussion with MC as "dangerous and unusual" weapons could be cars, butter knives, or who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I'm pretty sure flame throwers are legal in some states (and illegal in others).

Whatever that says of the 2nd amendment, I'm not sure.

Aren't flamethrowers classified as pest control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Aren't flamethrowers classified as pest control?

I saw a video of a guy using one on a wasp's nest. Long story short, he took the L on that one. Big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'll quote Robin Williams:

But do we have the right to put a bear's arms over our arms, and if so, are there regulations on which type of bear's arms we can use?

5 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

It's how I plow my driveway out in Winter.  

Time to pull it out then, winter his here in the Twin Cities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

But do we have the right to put a bear's arms over our arms, and if so, are there regulations on which type of bear's arms we can use?

Time to pull it out then, winter his here in the Twin Cities. 

It's already gassed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0