Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case

Watermark said:
And what has this to do with gun privilidges?

You could defend yourself with a nuke too. Use a gun in a crowded apartment and you might as well anyway.
Click to expand...

You could not defend yourself with a nuke, and you could not use one without committing murder yourself (unless you have a private helicoptor and get various rights from sovereign nations in North Africa to fly out to the middle of the Sahara to set one off, which isn't going to happen).

You could use a nuke for extortion, but that wouldn't be legal either...
 
I will repond to your first version.

Soceity has a right to defend itself.
Click to expand...

So rights are only for the collective?

You could defend yourself with a nuke, but that's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

But society has nukes, individuals do not. Are you arguing that we get rid of all our nukes?

City's have reasons to keep guns out of themselves
Click to expand...

And yet not one of them does so. Not even DC. What you are arguing is that city's have a reason to disarm civilians and other non government agents.

and 90% of the people out there who have guns only endanger themselves more by having them in the house.
Click to expand...

BS and not even relevant!

Besides, people shouldn't use guns to defend themselves in crowded apartments.
Click to expand...

The law does not ban guns in crowded apartments.


Watermark said:
And what has this to do with gun privilidges?
Click to expand...

I answered that with the previous post that you evaded.

You could defend yourself with a nuke too.
Click to expand...

How? Is somebody threatening you with a long range missile attack or a nuke of their own?

Use a gun in a crowded apartment and you might as well anyway.
Click to expand...

That's quite retarded and again the law does not ban guns in crowded apartments.
 
For dumbasses that think this will lead to overturning all gun laws... The appeals court ruling...

Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still “subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.
 
RStringfield said:
For dumbasses that think this will lead to overturning all gun laws... The appeals court ruling...

Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still “subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.
Click to expand...

Great, so liberals can't own guns... :tongout:
 
Watermark said:
Conservatives, for states rights whenever it allows gangs to mudrer children, not for states rights when it allows gays to marry.
Click to expand...


what a fucking retarded teenager you are. Like gang member are going to give up their guns because there's a ban. Like there will be no black market for guns. You've clearly thought this one through, ya idiot
 
Watermark said:
You're playing the ridiculous equivalency game again, except this time with a bit of ridiculous libertarian reductio ad absurdum thrown in.
Click to expand...

I want to comment on this again.

I was not making any argument that there is a moral equivalency between banning guns and any of the other bans I listed. My point, was only your dogmatic focus on the concrete applications of the right alone.

Another example, your argument is not any different than those that argue there is no right to burn a flag. I am not saying they are equivalent morally. They are equivalent in approach (focus on the concrete and ignore the abstract premise). That approach fails to offer a defense of any rights whatsoever.
 
tinfoil said:
what a fucking retarded teenager you are. Like gang member are going to give up their guns because there's a ban. Like there will be no black market for guns. You've clearly thought this one through, ya idiot
Click to expand...

Clearly, because there is a black market in nuclear weapons, there's no point in banning them. All we're doing is restricting law abiding citizens from using nukes responsibly.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, whenever the evil government comes along, a bunch of rednecks with shotguns are going to save the nation.

Listen, if an evil government did come, it would first have to get a majority, and it would also have to get the military behind it. By that time, no amount of forcible resistance in the world is going to stop it.
Click to expand...

I've had this debate with unintelligent thinkers before.

Do you truly think that ANY military group of less than 5 million members, not all of them being combat troops, have anywhere NEAR the capability to take on 12 or 15 million people ALL bearing arms? If you think the military is that powerful, I want some of what you are drinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top