The Supreme Court takes on Gun Rights

It's always easier to typecast those who disagree with you and intentionally misread (if you bother to read at all) what they've written.

_________________
"Anyone existing in this planet eagers to do something distinction"
- a robot

	Cuddly Takun wrote:
	I don't give a shit whether a telescopic sight is, or is not, cosmetic. Why don't you write 5 more paragraphs about the cosmetic nature of assault weapons bans, plus today's weather report and horoscope. If it's 5 paragraphs long, you can tell yourself you've replied logically.

	Cuddly Takun wrote:
	And Clinton never had sex with Lewinski. That was oral massage.

	Cuddly Takun wrote:
	I guess the right to free speech doesn't cover criticizing the gov't, and freedom of worship doesn't apply to Jews.

Blah blah blah irrelevant.

Maybe people say it alot because you make alot of irrelevant comments.

And before you say it, yes. What Im saying is entirely irrelevant.

_________________
CALI-FUCKING-BRATIONS!!!!

XBox Live Gamertag: espyes

	PHB wrote:
	It's always easier to typecast those who disagree with you and intentionally misread (if you bother to read at all) what they've written.

As I correctly predicted, most of the subsequent posts after mine are long on furious indignation and in fact did not reply to my point. The only one who even attempted a serious answer to my post was Eru. The rest of you dodged the issue. You wrote that my chemical arm argument is "terrible", but you don't address it.

	Erunanton wrote:
	Chemical, biological, and explosive (including nuclear) weapons cannot be used defensively. That's the whole rationale for having weapons in the first place. Also, private citizens do not have the means to properly contain the substances involved.

Well, no. First, explosives can be used defensively. So can grenades of mustard gas as were used in WWI. Second, what would you say to a ban on sniper rifles? I don't see how sniper rifles could be used defensively. Third, the NRA people always argue that the purpose of arms is to overthrow a tyrannical government, so, by this point of view, their defensive quality is not the point.

But really, the more important points are:
A. The 2nd Amendment does not restrict itself to defensive arms. It does not categorize arms by type.
B. Even if it did restrict itself to "defensive" arms, who decides which ones are defensive? What about grenades? Dynamite sticks, often used in action movies as weapons? Sniper rifles? Who decides? State, federal, or the individual?

	PHB wrote:
	So the reason we want these banned is "common sense".

Again, who decides what is common sense? State, federal, or the individual?

_________________
You lost to a black guy!

I have no patience for you. When your response to Eru is "Who says people can't use chemical bombs to defend their homes?" it's clear that all you want to do is argue. How insane do you think people who have guns are, that they would actually consider using fucking grenades in their house if it was legal?

_________________
"Anyone existing in this planet eagers to do something distinction"
- a robot

	Cuddly Takun wrote:
	Well, no. First, explosives can be used defensively. So can grenades of mustard gas as were used in WWI. Second, what would you say to a ban on sniper rifles? I don't see how sniper rifles could be used defensively. Third, the NRA people always argue that the purpose of arms is to overthrow a tyrannical government, so, by this point of view, their defensive quality is not the point.

1. Granted, but again, the argument is that explosives are of no practical use to the individual doing the defending. One of the reasons shotguns are favored for home defense is because they won't penetrate the walls, minimizing damage to the house and the hazard to non-combatants in other rooms. Now, if you want to argue what "practical" means, I preemptively forfeit.

2. Is this bait? It seems like you're trying to find out how gun crazy I am. But what would I, Eru, say to a ban on sniper rifles? "Not my problem."

If that's too evasive, how about this: What is a sniper rifle? How is it different from a hunting rifle? Hunting rifles are, by definition, used for sniping. Does that make them "sniper rifles"? Sniper rifles that are unsuitable for game hunting may be considered, but who says they're unsuitable? And how unsuitable do they need to be before they are considered as such? See, I can play this game too.

3. I'm arguing the point of defense. The possibility of a tyrannical government is a serious concern, but I don't think that situation would play out well for the resistance if they used a frontal assault with automatic weapons, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Guerrilla warfare, with semi-automatic rifles (which can be used for sniping, but are not "sniper rifles"), is much more appropriate. Again, the "practicality" argument. But I'm not concerned about this. Open warfare between the United States government and The People is a fantasy, he said, wringing his hands nervously.

	CT wrote:
	But really, the more important points are: A. The 2nd Amendment does not restrict itself to defensive arms. It does not categorize arms by type. B. Even if it did restrict itself to "defensive" arms, who decides which ones are defensive? What about grenades? Dynamite sticks, often used in action movies as weapons? Sniper rifles? Who decides? State, federal, or the individual?

A. No, it doesn't. Did they know that would be necessary? Probably not. But it is our problem now.

B. If you're asking me about the separation of powers in our government, it usually goes State > Fed > Individual. So, to answer your question, our elected representatives decide. Must be nice.

CT wrote:

	Eru wrote:
	So the reason we want these banned is "common sense".

Again, who decides what is common sense? State, federal, or the individual?

The second amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so the people could defend themselves against X. Certain weapons (i.e. the ones mentioned preciously), are actually counter-productive to this aim, and though they may be allowed in theory ("arms" being unqualified), allowing their use is not conducive to the purpose of weapons in general. Hence, against "common sense". Common sense being the opposite of stupidity. I might not know common sense when I see it, but I know stupidity, and thanks to logic, properly constructed arguments by contradiction are valid. Allowing chem/bio/nuclear weapons is (obviously) stupid, so we don't do it. Other weapons? Questionable.

Look at me, I've gotten to the end of my post and I've completely forgotten to be unreasonably confrontational. I'm so bad at this.

_________________
Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

	Erunanton wrote:
	Jericho, for one, actually supports the (correctly interpreted) banning of fully-automatic assault weapons. In terms of any possible scenario a citizen might find himself in, this type of weapon would be completely impractical. Obviously they could also be used to quickly kill large numbers of people in a crowded area with minimal resistance, hence the movement against them.

Oh no, not a ban, but the $200 tax stamp and proper registration. Proper registration entails criminal background checks and sometimes the OK of your local law enforcement department, depending on the state, meaning your local sheriff has to check up on your record and let the government know what he thinks of you having a fully-automatic weapon. I think the NFA does a splendid job of making sure any sale or transfer of fully-automatic weapons is done between private citizens with no criminal background no matter how impractical said fully-automatic weapons may be.

CT, you brought up the why not own NBC weapons idea in the last discussion we had on this topic, and you're getting the same answer. I'm not going to set off a dirty bomb in my house if someone's robbing me since it's more apt to kill me, the intruder, and everyone in a block's radius of my home than do me any good. And please, the smallpox argument? My one-time usage of smallpox to defend myself in my home (God, this is already ridiculous) is a persistent issue. If a take a shot at someone in my house with a semi-auto rifle, the damage is starts and stops with the bullet leaving the barrel, impacting whatever is in it's way, and then coming to rest once all the kinetic energy is expended. It's not going like the bullet is then going to move itself around at lethal speeds and then proceed to kill small children in the neighborhood, which smallpox just might if any of them are unlucky enough not to have their immunizations yet.

Also, while we're on the topic of "assault rifles" and fully-automatic weapons, let's set them apart properly. "Assault rifles" as commonly bandied about by the media and politicians are not necessarily fully-automatic. Fully-automatic assault rifles are Class III weapons, covered under the NFA I mentioned earlier, subject to stringent background checks, $200 tax stamp, government registration and monitoring, etc. The reason we're making such a racket about the assault weapons ban is because it doesn't and never did encompass fully-automatic weapons. The NFA and Gun Control Act of 1968 (odious as I think it is) already do that, and if the major concern here is some psycho dumping 30-round mags into a shopping center on full auto, then the legislation is already in place and has been for decades.

Jericho wrote:

	Erunanton wrote:
	Jericho, for one, actually supports the (correctly interpreted) banning of fully-automatic assault weapons. In terms of any possible scenario a citizen might find himself in, this type of weapon would be completely impractical. Obviously they could also be used to quickly kill large numbers of people in a crowded area with minimal resistance, hence the movement against them.

Oh no, not a ban, but the $200 tax stamp and proper registration. Proper registration entails criminal background checks and sometimes the OK of your local law enforcement department, depending on the state, meaning your local sheriff has to check up on your record and let the government know what he thinks of you having a fully-automatic weapon. I think the NFA does a splendid job of making sure any sale or transfer of fully-automatic weapons is done between private citizens with no criminal background no matter how impractical said fully-automatic weapons may be

My bad.

_________________
Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

To elaborate on that, while I don't foresee a need for civilian ownership on legally-acquired and registered fully-automatic weapons (with the improbable exception for overthrowing the government and/or LA Riots situations), I don't see a need for a blanket ban seeing as they're overwhelmingly used for the killing of paper targets, cars, or other stationary, non-living targets for the purpose of recreation. I like the NFA because it keeps the fully-automatic weapons in a regulated, controlled environment out of criminal hands and enables the civilian who's willing to spend a whole lot of money on the weapon itself and the ammo needed to feed it to get what they want.

Have you ever been in an NBC environment? Have you ever been in a situation where armed criminals were threatening you with firearms? The horrible thing about nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are that once deployed, there really is no defense, no recourse for the person being subjected to the attack. The great thing about having criminals threaten you with illegally purchased firearms is that you can fight back with your legally purchased firearm. Unless the government bans them all.

Also, if you don't mind my asking... have you ever handled a firearm?

I thought we were done here.

_________________
Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

My bad, I just got back from a field exercise and this topic was still marked new. Will check dates more carefully from now on.

	Jericho wrote:
	CT, you brought up the why not own NBC weapons idea in the last discussion we had on this topic, and you're getting the same answer.

Which is no answer. You don't even have a counter-argument. You just dodge it by indignantly saying YOU would not use chemical/biological weapons. Which is not what I asked.

Jericho wrote:

And please, the smallpox argument? My one-time usage of smallpox to defend myself in my home (God, this is already ridiculous) is a persistent issue. If a take a shot at someone in my house with a semi-auto rifle, the damage is starts and stops
with the bullet leaving the barrel, impacting whatever is in it's way, and then coming to rest once all the kinetic energy is expended. It's not going like the bullet is then going to move itself around at lethal speeds and then proceed to kill small children in the neighborhood, which smallpox just might if any of them are unlucky enough not to have their immunizations yet.

First, your point is that YOU would not use biological weapons. Which is not what I asked. The point is, how do you keep these weapons out of the hands of those whose common sense is different than yours? Second, I seriously disagree with your contention that when YOU fire a gun, the bullets would never fly out a window and kill children in the neighborhood. What are you, magic? In LA that shit happens all the time. Gangsters get in a fight, they spray bullets at some dudes standing on a street corner, the bullets fly through windows and kill kids. It happens.

So your whole point is "WAAAH I have common sense CT." According to your common sense chemical and biological weapons are not practical. You insist most gun owners have this common sense. What about people whose common sense is different than yours? Both those who A. would like a ton of dynamite and B. those who live in neighborhoods where innocent bystanders get shot by gangsters every day and want no more of it. Their common sense is different than yours.

So WHO legislates this common sense and ON WHAT AUTHORITY do they legislate it?

If legislators were to take your semi-automatic weapons or shotguns away, you would insist your rights are violated. Surely there are people who feel their rights violated because they can't get a ton of dynamite. If you're right, how are they wrong? Who decides at what point a legislature is violating your/their rights and ON WHAT AUTHORITY do they draw the line? Because an argument based on common sense is NOT AN ARGUMENT BASED ON RIGHTS. You are switching arguments. You are effectively conceding that owning arms is not a right, but a privilege, like driving. If it is a privilege, OK, then the gov't can pass laws saying no U-turn in a business district, and no teflon-coated bullets.

_________________
You lost to a black guy!

	Cuddly Takun wrote:
	So WHO legislates this common sense and ON WHAT AUTHORITY do they legislate it?

Why do you keep asking this? The answer is "Our duly elected representatives", and " by the authority given to them by the people". Didn't you take a civics class?

_________________
Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space.

Erunanton wrote:

	Cuddly Takun wrote:
	So WHO legislates this common sense and ON WHAT AUTHORITY do they legislate it?

Why do you keep asking this? The answer is "Our duly elected representatives", and " by the authority given to them by the people". Didn't you take a civics class?

So the 2nd. Amendment thus has no power then? Since Amendments constrain the power of the people and their representatives.

_________________
You lost to a black guy!

I want so badly to believe that you don't actually believe the bullshit you just wrote. The person you're talking about that wants to use a nuclear warhead to defend his home does not exist. Stop making an arguement decrying the trampled rights of a nonexistant entity, it makes your arguement even more ridiculous.

_________________
"Anyone existing in this planet eagers to do something distinction"
- a robot