Registration WILL lead to CONFISCATION. Don't trust the takers.

[Bonestorm]

Oh, so I should have put the ruling first? Why are you and Onceler incapable of holding a conversation about someTHING rather than someONE?

It is slightly annoying, but I do know that when the Siamese twins enter the conversation they will be saying something about me, won't talk about the topic, and that it means my argument has been effective.

When I converse with people I generally expect them to respond to questions that I ask them. If you just did that instead we'd have carried on a conversation about someTHING.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Or you could answer the fucking question, then try to "teach."

Or you could shut the fuck up and quit being insufferable asshole who is critical of how others choose to engage members of the board.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When I converse with people I generally expect them to respond to questions that I ask them. If you just did that instead we'd have carried on a conversation about someTHING.

Hilarious. Practice what you preach.

 

[Bonestorm]

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. [4]
Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.

At best, the case holds that registration requirements, as applied to people for whom is it illegal to possess firearms, is a violation of the 5th Amendment. It does not hold that registration requirements, as a general matter, violate the 5th Amendment.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You're going to have to explain your logic on the bold there. I mean, NBC are militarily useful. Mustard gas is highly effective. As is anthrax.

No because biological/chemical weapons are too unwieldly and the effects of them cannot be measure or controlled, plus they are highly subject to environmental conditions. As their effects cannot be reliably measured, they have no use OTHER than deterrence. Same goes for nuclear weapons (I.E. they are only useful for deterrence). Basically, we have them to frighten other nations so we don't have to use them. The use of them would ultimately defeat the purpose of having them.

Here's my source for all this by the way:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Prohibition_of_nuclear_weapons.html?id=8aGPAAAAMAAJ

 

[Bonestorm]

Or you could shut the fuck up and quit being insufferable asshole who is critical of how others choose to engage members of the board.

So precious.

 

[Damocles]

I'm discussing the topic as well. I just couldn't resist pointing that out about your post.

Haven't seen it, so far all the posts from you that I've read in this thread have been about me and have discussed the topic exactly zero.

So interesting that you note that about us, but ignore your brethren when all they post is that Jarod is an idiot or stupid. Methinks it's because they have an "L" after their name.

I haven't yet seen one post that simply calls Jarod an idiot. I've seen some that call him an idiot then tell him why they think that by discussing the idea... Your post, nada. Only me. Again, when the Siamese Twins jump in about "Damo" it just means that Damo's argument has been effective and they hope to distract from that. It's not like I can read every post though, some may exist, but since I've started participating in this thread... not so much.

 

[Bonestorm]

No because biological/chemical weapons are too unwieldly and the effects of them cannot be measure or controlled, plus they are highly subject to environmental conditions. As their effects cannot be reliably measured, they have no use OTHER than deterrence. Same goes for nuclear weapons (I.E. they are only useful for deterrence). Basically, we have them to frighten other nations so we don't have to use them. The use of them would ultimately defeat the purpose of having them.

Here's my source for all this by the way:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Prohibition_of_nuclear_weapons.html?id=8aGPAAAAMAAJ

Why does this have any signifiance to what the term "arms" means under the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So precious.

Is that you standing by Jarod and Oncelor that you refer to? Did you feel the need to rush in and save them from Damo's question?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Why does this have any signifiance to what the term "arms" means under the 2nd Amendment?

If they have no military application, they cannot be protected by the definition of arms. Of course they are a type of "arm" in the most strict and literal sense of the word, but since you asked for my definition I gave it to you. Arms are something of military utility.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Haven't seen it, so far all the posts from you that I've read in this thread have been about me and have discussed the topic exactly zero.


I haven't yet seen one post that simply calls Jarod an idiot. I've seen some that call him an idiot then tell him why they think that by discussing the idea... Your post, nada. Only me. Again, when the Siamese Twins jump in about "Damo" it just means that Damo's argument has been effective and they hope to distract from that. It's not like I can read every post though, some may exist, but since I've started participating in this thread... not so much.

That says a lot about your selective vision. A lot.

There are actually quite a few posts that just call Jarod stupid. And I've posted about 30 times on this thread - a good 28 of those are discussing the topic.

 

[christiefan915]

It's irrelevant which others are doing it when WE are ALREADY doing it. It's not false equivalency (which is what you're hoping to shout out) when the country in question (America) is already confiscating/confiscated guns based on registration.

Clearly the writer of your "Myths" article thought it was important to throw in other countries. Why is that? If they wanted to argue only about what the US is doing, it would thin down their arguments to nothing.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Clearly the writer of your "Myths" article thought it was important to throw in other countries. Why is that? If they wanted to argue only about what the US is doing, it would thin down their arguments to nothing.

Because the author, while writing primarily for Americans, is also appealing to an international audience. 2ndly, because other people will cite crime data from other nations with rights restrictive gun control, the author is free to apply equal standards of evidence.

 

[Damocles]

That says a lot about your selective vision. A lot.

Or it shows when I entered the thread and that I haven't read every post and that you would prefer to ascribe "nefarious" motives to what has already been mundanely explained.

There are actually quite a few posts that just call Jarod stupid. And I've posted about 30 times on this thread - a good 28 of those are discussing the topic.

You should talk about those, that's about people and not ideas and must be very important... also because you've been entirely incapable of actually discussing the topic. Dung has at least asked some questions on the actual topic. You seem to just be trying to run a side distraction. As to why I'm talking about you, because the first post from you that I've seen in this thread was about me, and every one since has been about somebody who has posted in the thread, so far every post has been simply about posters...


Please tell me when you start talking about registration in this thread. I may not notice it and would like to celebrate when it happens.

 

[Bonestorm]

If they have no military application, they cannot be protected by the definition of arms. Of course they are a type of "arm" in the most strict and literal sense of the word, but since you asked for my definition I gave it to you. Arms are something of military utility.

I still don't understand why you claim that these types of arms have no military application or no military utility. I mean, I understand that they have a dterrent effect, but isn't the deterrent effect a by product of their tremendous utility in producing death?

 

[Jarod]

Yet, here in the USA they already tried this, while you remain ignorant and think that it isn't a violation, the SCOTUS disagrees with you. (I think the ruling was some time in the mid to late 60s.)

It would not be the first time I've disagreed with the S.Ct.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I still don't understand why you claim that these types of arms have no military application or no military utility. I mean, I understand that they have a dterrent effect, but isn't the deterrent effect a by product of their tremendous utility in producing death?

Yes, but then they aren't to be used. The fact that we use them shows that they failed at their purpose, which was to deter their use.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, but then they aren't to be used. The fact that we use them shows that they failed at their purpose, which was to deter their use.

OK. But how does that render them not "arms." I mean, let's assume that their only usefulness is in producing a deterrent effect. That doesn't change what they are. And if, as some gun advocates argue, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a check against tyranny, isn't the deterrent effect of these type of weapons useful in achieving that end such that the people should have the right to bear them.

 

[Damocles]

I still don't understand why you claim that these types of arms have no military application or no military utility. I mean, I understand that they have a dterrent effect, but isn't the deterrent effect a by product of their tremendous utility in producing death?

I think it is a control (police) action rather than military action that these particular weapons have. They don't really have that "Tremendous" ability in producing death that you seem to believe. The deterrent comes in the "how" of death, not the efficiency of it.

For example when Saddam used it on the Khurds it took literally days of spreading chemicals to kill the large amount of people. If he wanted to just kill them rather than frighten them with his ruthlessness it would have been far more efficient to strafe them with bullets.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

OK. But how does that render them not "arms." I mean, let's assume that their only usefulness is in producing a deterrent effect. That doesn't change what they are. And if, as some gun advocates argue, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a check against tyranny, isn't the deterrent effect of these type of weapons useful in achieving that end such that the people should have the right to bear them.

Well, then the threat of use would have to apply. But since the use would ultimately negate the effect and purpose of having them.

But this is all pretty pointless. Even if they were legal to own, you'd have to find someone who wanted to sell you one and since they aren't being produced anymore, that'd be mighty difficult. And if someone happens to know already, and has the money, then there isn't too much to stop them at current anyways. So in every way, shape, and form, it's a non-issue and distracts from ACTUAL concerns.