Gun Nuts: Why the double standard?

I think we've really hit the children here once the other sides only argument is "If you don't believe in unrestricted gun warfare, then you are a wussy!"
 
LadyT said:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6029790

John White (Who's ironically Black) defends his home and his property with a gun after being threatened by a mob of drunken racist mafia wannabe's and he gets sentenced to 2 years in prison. Whatever happened to "the right bear arms"?

Darla, this was in your neck of the woods were you following this case at all?
Click to expand...
It appears that this happened in a state where 2nd Amendment Lovers are not welcome.
 
Damocles said:
Have you ever read the gun laws in NYC?

This guy lived on Long Island. He had to register a pea shooter, dude.
Click to expand...

Gun registration? You think that is anti-2nd amendment?

Is that really what the 2nd-amendment lovers want? No background checks, no registration. Might as well just put 'em on the shelves at Stop & Shop...
 
Onceler said:
Gun registration? You think that is anti-2nd amendment?

Is that really what the 2nd-amendment lovers want? No background checks, no registration. Might as well just put 'em on the shelves at Stop & Shop...
Click to expand...
It isn't just registration, it is also permits with up to 6 months wait, and actual bans on many items as well.

The reality is NYC is not a gun friendly environment.
 
Mississippi is gun friendly, and because of that, we have like 1/10th of the murders of New York.*








*Not an actual statistic
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Maybe the black people who vote en masse for the handgun ban and for the people on the city council who support it are unwittingly depriving themselves of their own choice? This argument makes sense.
Click to expand...

And what percentage turnout is exactly sufficient to sign away other people's basic rights?
 
Adam Weinberg said:
And what percentage turnout is exactly sufficient to sign away other people's basic rights?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry?

Weren't you talking about the forced oppression of the poor blacks in DC, who allow themselves to be submitted to the torture of the knowledge that it's illegal to have killing devices in the city?

Why, this is just like denying people free speech, or nuclear missiles. It's exactly the same and equal and there are no possible nuances with which anyone could insert into any argument at all (such as "Free speech rarely kills people" - deplorably evil people use that) to disagree with said proposition. Inexcusable.

Everything is black and white and absolute.*




*Example of libertarian thought process.
 
Last edited:
You're acting like a fool, and though a mild word, I don't use it lightly.

It is just like denying free seech. It is a part of the Bill of the Rights. Even a consensus (which often, voting is not in this country) among the public is not sufficient to overturn the Constitution.

And I am not only speaking of Washington, DC.

We can only hope the Supreme Court will have sense enough to confirm this soon for their sake, though.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
You're acting like a fool, and though a mild word, I don't use it lightly.

It is just like denying free seech. It is a part of the Bill of the Rights. Even a consensus (which often, voting is not in this country) among the public is not sufficient to overturn the Constitution.

And I am not only speaking of Washington, DC.

We can only hope the Supreme Court will have sense enough to confirm this soon for their sake, though.
Click to expand...

How does the majority that voted on the constitution have the right to overturn the basic rights of the people to be free from killing weapons?
 
Watermark said:
How does the majority that voted on the constitution have the right to overturn the basic rights of the people to be free from killing weapons?
Click to expand...

The Congress and the States were the just authority to establish the Supreme Law with our consent. No person has a right to be free from other people exercising their rights by force of law. That suggests that they are depriving someone else of a right for their convenience and peace of mind, and that is not how a free society works.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
The Congress and the States were the just authority to establish the Supreme Law with our consent. No person has a right to be free from other people exercising their rights by force of law. That suggests that they are depriving someone else of a right for their convenience and peace of mind, and that is not how a free society works.
Click to expand...

I assume this derives from natural rights?

Who defines natural rights? Nature? Some guys who wrote a paper back in 1787?
 
Watermark said:
I assume this derives from natural rights?

Who defines natural rights? Nature? Some guys who wrote a paper back in 1787?
Click to expand...
They are enumerated rights on the document that enumerates our rights recognized by every state as the contract that sets limits on the power of the government.

If you do not like it there is a proper process to go through to change it, you don't get to just ignore it when you wish.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah that's not expanding the second ammendment at all.
Click to expand...
No it is not expanding the 2nd amendment. It is the way the amendment was written.

In the 1780s, the militia was not a state controlled formal military organization. By the standards of 1780s, today's state national guards would have been considered to be state controlled standing armies, because the members of the national guards and reserves are paid for their membership in the national guard, and are legally controlled by the states in all matters pertaining to that membership.

The militia of the 1780s was made up of individuals who volunteered to reply to a call to arms, but did not otherwise belong to any military body. The militia was organized (when called to arms) by other individual volunteers, none of whom were beholden to or under the command of state government. States did not pay the militia men unless there was called to arms, and an agreement of payment signed between the state and the militia AFTER it was called. There was no paid drill days or paid annual training days in the militia of old. Nor did the government provide the arms and ammunition used by militia men. Militia men were expected to provide their own arms.

Being as they were expected to be able to fight a standing army if necessary, the right to keep and bear arms also bore the expectation the individual would have the right to match the type of weapons carried by the soldiers of a standing army. And the standing army they were expected to be able to fight included any standing army misused by any state or US federal government; especially federal.

The push to federalize the United States under the constitution we now have was not accepted by all. Those with anti-federalist leanings that helped put the constitution together were afraid of the amount of centralized power the constitution represents. (Boy would they roll in their graves if they knew how much more centralized power has been granted the federal government since then!)

So the anti-federalists pushed through the Bill of Rights; a push that started even before the constitution was ratified. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government is forbidden to do to change or interfere with the rights of individual people. Of special note is the fact that the bill of rights consistently reserved rights to THE PEOPLE. Throughout the constitution and the bill of rights, when they meant for a power be granted the federal government, they referred specifically to the branch of federal government the power was granted. When reserving a power to the state governments, they specifically use the term "the states". And when they meant the individual people living as citizens of the United States, they used the term "the people."

Among those things the government were forbidden to do by the bill of rights was infringe on the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear the arms. That is NOT a right granted to the states to organize national guards as the anti-gun morons try to claim. If the writers had meant the states, they would have used the word "states". "The PEOPLE" referred to in the 2nd amendment are the very same PEOPLE whose right to free speech cannot be hindered, whose right to free expression of religion cannot be interfered with, whose homes cannot be searched without a court issued warrant, and whose security and rights are protected in a variety of other ways by the Bill of Rights.

The reason for leaving the people the right to keep and bear arms is because "a well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state." For the militia (ie: common everyday citizens who agree to respond to a call to arms) to be able to provide security, they must be reasonably capable to keep and bear the arms of the soldier of a standing army.

The soldiers of a standing army are expected to carry some type of small arm: a rifle with full automatic capability, and/or a submachine gun, and/or semi-automatic side arm, all with capability to accept large capacity magazines.

Grenade launchers, missile launchers, high explosives, etc. are not included as those are specialized weapons reserved to soldiers who a specially trained to use them.

But the weapons carried by all modern soldiers of a standing army; those should also be the weapons available to the people.
 
Watermark said:
I assume this derives from natural rights?

Who defines natural rights? Nature? Some guys who wrote a paper back in 1787?
Click to expand...

No, it is a basic civil understanding of the law and human nature. We are supposed to have a system of limited government and individual rights. What you are asking for follows the same logic as any use of government power to restrict the individual behaviors of free people.

It says: "Let's hire the government to restrict the individual choices of people who we--the majority--find unsatisfactory, potentially dangerous or with vice." In this case, the law abiding owners of firearms.

Well, it's a slippery slope, and while I know that's supposed to be a logical fallacy, I believe we've seen many countries slide down that slope before, including our own. You cannot pick and choose with a Constitution. The purpose is expressed in the very word.

The same impulse you're depending on is the one that takes us all the way to the bottom to a government with no constitution.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
No, it is a basic civil understanding of the law and human nature. We are supposed to have a system of limited government and individual rights. What you are asking for follows the same logic as any use of government power to restrict the individual behaviors of free people.

It says: "Let's hire the government to restrict the individual choices of people who we--the majority--find unsatisfactory, potentially dangerous or with vice." In this case, the law abiding owners of firearms.

Well, it's a slippery slope, and while I know that's supposed to be a logical fallacy, I believe we've seen many countries slide down that slope before, including our own. You cannot pick and choose with a Constitution. The purpose is expressed in the very word.

The same impulse you're depending on is the one that takes us all the way to the bottom to a government with no constitution.
Click to expand...

"Because the bible tells me so..."
 
Good Luck said:
No it is not expanding the 2nd amendment. It is the way the amendment was written.

In the 1780s, the militia was not a state controlled formal military organization. By the standards of 1780s, today's state national guards would have been considered to be state controlled standing armies, because the members of the national guards and reserves are paid for their membership in the national guard, and are legally controlled by the states in all matters pertaining to that membership.

The militia of the 1780s was made up of individuals who volunteered to reply to a call to arms, but did not otherwise belong to any military body. The militia was organized (when called to arms) by other individual volunteers, none of whom were beholden to or under the command of state government. States did not pay the militia men unless there was called to arms, and an agreement of payment signed between the state and the militia AFTER it was called. There was no paid drill days or paid annual training days in the militia of old. Nor did the government provide the arms and ammunition used by militia men. Militia men were expected to provide their own arms.

Being as they were expected to be able to fight a standing army if necessary, the right to keep and bear arms also bore the expectation the individual would have the right to match the type of weapons carried by the soldiers of a standing army. And the standing army they were expected to be able to fight included any standing army misused by any state or US federal government; especially federal.

The push to federalize the United States under the constitution we now have was not accepted by all. Those with anti-federalist leanings that helped put the constitution together were afraid of the amount of centralized power the constitution represents. (Boy would they roll in their graves if they knew how much more centralized power has been granted the federal government since then!)

So the anti-federalists pushed through the Bill of Rights; a push that started even before the constitution was ratified. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government is forbidden to do to change or interfere with the rights of individual people. Of special note is the fact that the bill of rights consistently reserved rights to THE PEOPLE. Throughout the constitution and the bill of rights, when they meant for a power be granted the federal government, they referred specifically to the branch of federal government the power was granted. When reserving a power to the state governments, they specifically use the term "the states". And when they meant the individual people living as citizens of the United States, they used the term "the people."

Among those things the government were forbidden to do by the bill of rights was infringe on the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear the arms. That is NOT a right granted to the states to organize national guards as the anti-gun morons try to claim. If the writers had meant the states, they would have used the word "states". "The PEOPLE" referred to in the 2nd amendment are the very same PEOPLE whose right to free speech cannot be hindered, whose right to free expression of religion cannot be interfered with, whose homes cannot be searched without a court issued warrant, and whose security and rights are protected in a variety of other ways by the Bill of Rights.

The reason for leaving the people the right to keep and bear arms is because "a well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state." For the militia (ie: common everyday citizens who agree to respond to a call to arms) to be able to provide security, they must be reasonably capable to keep and bear the arms of the soldier of a standing army.

The soldiers of a standing army are expected to carry some type of small arm: a rifle with full automatic capability, and/or a submachine gun, and/or semi-automatic side arm, all with capability to accept large capacity magazines.

Grenade launchers, missile launchers, high explosives, etc. are not included as those are specialized weapons reserved to soldiers who a specially trained to use them.

But the weapons carried by all modern soldiers of a standing army; those should also be the weapons available to the people.
Click to expand...

Uhhhmmm yeah.
 
Watermark said:
"Because the bible tells me so..."
Click to expand...

Why have you become so much more stupid since your conversion to the left? You should have one of the sharper ones take over, they may actually use one of the compelling, socially-conscious, humanitarian arguments that I respect.

The Constitution is not the Bible. It is not an article of faith. It's the law! It's not blind to expect your government to observe its own law, it is only blind to permit injustices by the misuse of the law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top