- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The four arguments against military style full semi automatic assault rifles
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:12 am to Flame Salamander
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:12 am to Flame Salamander
quote:
Little man, you are so fricking stupid that you didn't get my point at all. God damn you are dumb. Just dumb as shite. Too fricking dumb to even understand my question. God damn, give it up and go to bed.
I think this dude set a record for 0-to-FullRetard
0
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:23 am to SoulGlo
quote:
The wiggle room is determined by their ability to enact what you hypothesize. Without amending the Constitution, I don't think you could get to that.
They already have with the NFA - no amendment needed.
Also, so many on this board are convinced that the 2nd Amendment rights that are protected are absolute. The courts have already ruled that other rights protected by the BOR are NOT absolute. While our free speech is protected, you can't just say anything you want at any time - generally in the interest of public safety. Similarly the NFA restricted our 2nd A rights from possessing fully automatic weapons to a very few.
I sense a lot of complacency on this board regarding our right to bear arms. I believe the government can do more to restrict it than people on here are willing to admit.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:26 am to Clames
quote:
the 2nd Amendment is a check on the power of the government
That's not actually stated in the amendment.
quote:
How would that work out if the government was allowed to dictate who is armed and with what to such a degree?
They already do as per the NFA.
quote:
As it stands now, the US citizens have access to higher quality small arms and ammunition than would ever be issued to an infantry grunt.
That can change without an amendment to the Constitution.
quote:
You idiot
Don't get so emotionally involved, it's just a discussion.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:29 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
While our free speech is protected, you can't just say anything you want at any time - generally in the interest of public safety.
Ahhhhh, the ole "fire in a crowded theater" nonsense again.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:39 am to MrCarton
quote:
Ahhhhh, the ole "fire in a crowded theater" nonsense again.
Or "bomb" in the airport, or slander, or libel, or perjury, you simply can't say whatever you want at any time because of your First Amendment rights. Your right to free speech has some conditions that aren't included in the actual text of the amendment. The National Firearms Act of '35 also shows that rights protected under the 2nd Amendment aren't absolute.
I do find it fascinating that so many people ITT believe I'm some kind of anti-gun nut for questioning these things.
Quite simply, if the government armed the People, how could anyone say that the actual 2nd Amendment wasn't being upheld by the government? No one has made a valid argument against it. Instead there's been a lot of knee-jerk responses like, "you stoopit gun-grabber, you!!1!"
Posted on 3/5/18 at 10:25 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:The entire Bill of Rights was advanced as a check on government. The federalists established an army elsewhere In the constitution. The idea that the founders wrote one exceptional amendement and accidentally established two armies isn’t really supportable.
the 2nd Amendment is a check on the power of the government
——————
That's not actually stated in the amendment.
quote:The government didn’t arm the people. It was (and still is) up to the People to buy their own guns.
Quite simply, if the government armed the People, how could anyone say that the actual 2nd Amendment wasn't being upheld by the government?
Posted on 3/5/18 at 10:31 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The idea that the founders wrote one exceptional amendment and accidentally established two armies isn’t really supportable.
That's an interesting straw man.
quote:
The government didn’t arm the people
It's kind of hard to have a conversation with someone who just crashed the thread.
Read it again, "IF the government armed the People, how could anyone say that the actual 2nd Amendment wasn't being upheld by the government?"
My point being, if the government can restrict the availability of some arms, (fully-auto, e.g.), what's to stop them from limiting all arms except for those they deem as still supporting the right to bear arms (Springfield 30-06 and Stevens SXS, e.g.)?
How far down the road of restricting our choice of arms can they go before they are in violation of protecting our right to bear arms?
Posted on 3/5/18 at 10:33 am to WildTchoupitoulas
You're still peddling this idiotic shite?
Posted on 3/5/18 at 10:40 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Or "bomb" in the airport, or slander, or libel, or perjury, you simply can't say whatever you want at any time because of your First Amendment rights.
Do I need to spell out the difference to you? I guess I do.
Your examples of restricted speech are ones that infringe on the safety and rights of other people. Fire in a theater is a threat to the safety of those around you.
Me owning 38641 AR15s have no bearing on the rights or safety of others. There are laws restricting the USE of those weapons. If I infringe on the rights of others, then they have a case against me.
quote:
The National Firearms Act of '35 also shows that rights protected under the 2nd Amendment aren't absolute.
I don't believe it does. I think there are ways around that act, and not enough people are affected by it to matter. I disagree with it, but it is still an argument made in proper channels. If the government tried to implement your hypothetical, there would be absolute war.
quote:
if the government armed the People, how could anyone say that the actual 2nd Amendment wasn't being upheld by the government? No one has made a valid argument against it
There have been several.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 10:50 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Izzit? Are you claiming the 2A is a check on government or isn’t? BTW the 4th amendment doesn’t explicitly say it’s a check on government either.
That's an interesting straw man.
quote:Fair enough.
It's kind of hard to have a conversation with someone who just crashed the thread.
quote:Oh, so it was an imaginary hypothetical? If so carry on.
IF the government armed the People,
quote:Infringed rights is a terrible justification for infringed rights. The reason it hasn’t happened more so, the people are too motivated against it.
My point being, if the government can restrict the availability of some arms, (fully-auto, e.g.), what's to stop them from limiting all arms except for those they deem as still supporting the right to bear arms (Springfield 30-06 and Stevens SXS, e.g.)?
quote:They’ve already done so. And “the people” have taken it like a porn star. Doesn’t make it right. Nor just it justify continued erosion.
How far down the road of restricting our choice of arms can they go before they are in violation of protecting our right to bear arms?
I often wonder.. what if we treated the 4A like the 2A. If you were standing trial... could the government say: “you can’t have that lawyer, he’s too good”.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 11:17 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
If you were standing trial... could the government say: “you can’t have that lawyer, he’s too good”.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 11:45 am to SoulGlo
I'm responding by memory and not a direct quote but the following is from an interview I read and is interesting:
In the early 60's there was a meeting of the surviving officers from both the US and Japan involving the attacks on Pearl Harber on Dec. 7, 1941. This attack destroyed or enabled the entire Amercan Fleet and opened the door for Japan to move to the mainland had it desired.
At this meeting, a U.S. officer asked the top surviving officer from Japan why they did not move to the mainland after such a successful strike.
The Japanese officer replied that his superiors were well aware that America had government-sponsored rifle, shotgun and pistol matches and Americans were privately and personally armed more than any other populace. Japan was not going to risk an attack on a well armed and trained civilian population that had free access to arms and ammunition. He said something like ---we knew there would be a gun behind every blade of grass and we were not willing to take that risk to go to the mainland.
In the early 60's there was a meeting of the surviving officers from both the US and Japan involving the attacks on Pearl Harber on Dec. 7, 1941. This attack destroyed or enabled the entire Amercan Fleet and opened the door for Japan to move to the mainland had it desired.
At this meeting, a U.S. officer asked the top surviving officer from Japan why they did not move to the mainland after such a successful strike.
The Japanese officer replied that his superiors were well aware that America had government-sponsored rifle, shotgun and pistol matches and Americans were privately and personally armed more than any other populace. Japan was not going to risk an attack on a well armed and trained civilian population that had free access to arms and ammunition. He said something like ---we knew there would be a gun behind every blade of grass and we were not willing to take that risk to go to the mainland.
This post was edited on 3/5/18 at 11:47 am
Posted on 3/5/18 at 12:06 pm to Centinel
quote:
You're still peddling this idiotic shite?
I'm sorry that you think the federal government chiseling away at our 2nd Amendment rights is idiotic shite.
Maybe go stick your head back in the sand.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 12:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm sorry that you think the federal government chiseling away at our 2nd Amendment rights is idiotic shite.
That's not idiotic. Your examples and line of reasoning is.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 12:22 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
it was an imaginary hypothetical?
Yes, if the government issued guns, could it than ban all others and still be protecting our right to bear arms?
quote:
Doesn’t make it right. Nor just it justify continued erosion.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Right or wrong, justly or unjustly, I'm wondering where the cutoff for the path they've ALREADY taken is. At what point does the court say, "Oh, no, that is a clear infringement on the right to bear arms."
After all, they've already restricted access to fully automatic guns (and artillery, grenades and rocket launchers), how big a step is it to go from there to restricting access to semi-automatic firearms? From there, how big a leap would it be to say, "Only '03 Springfields and Stevens SXSs are allowed." That just doesn't seem to be a very big leap from where I'm standing.
And, if you've noticed, NOWHERE in this thread am I actually advocating for such a move, I'm merely trying to get to the logical conclusion for the route the government is already on. How far can they go under current USSC decisions? It looks to me that they could go quite a bit further.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 12:26 pm to Centinel
quote:
Your examples and line of reasoning is.
How so?
They've already restricted us from several types of weapons, why is it idiotic to suggest that they may go further? Do you think there's some magic legal wall between fully-automatic and semi-automatic firearms? What makes you think they couldn't make it just as hard to acquire semi-autos as they have to acquire fully-autos? ...and ultimately issue what they deem appropriate and outlaw all else? At what point is our right to bear arms not being protected by the gover
Posted on 3/5/18 at 1:33 pm to CDawson
quote:
Dec. 7, 1941. This attack destroyed or enabled the entire Amercan Fleet
Not.
Even.
Close.
All but two ships sunk were refloated and re-fitted within months because the Japanese didn't destroy the repair facilities. Why not? Because Nagumo realized the aircraft carriers weren't in harbor, and he couldn't risk another sortie (the last one was supposed to destroy the docks) with the threat of those carriers in the vicinity.
Those same carriers would be responsible for destroying not only the bulk of his main carrier force 6 months later, but he more importantly lost the experienced navy pilots that could never be replaced.
While the quote about the guns behind every blade of grass, the IJN was never even close to invading the mainland US - even if that was their goal. In reality, they just wanted to remove the fleet from interfering in their actions to secure resources in the Dutch East Indies.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 2:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm merely trying to get to the logical conclusion for the route the government is already on. How far can they go under current USSC decisions? It looks to me that they could go quite a bit further.
Your entire problem is your ignorance of existing SCOTUS cases. Miller established that the 2nd Amendment protects firearms suitable as ordinary military equipment. Miller was poorly argued by the lawyers since it was never shown that the US military issued short-barreled shotguns in the trenches of WWI, such would not be the case if a similar argument was put before the court today. Miller should have ended the NFA and it's entirely possible a future court can strike it down yet. Heller and Caetano go even further in limiting what the Federal and state governments can do and your theory that issuing bolt-action rifles and shotguns would allow the government to ban semi-automatic firearms without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment simply doesn't hold water.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 2:06 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Not.
Even.
Close.
Should say Pacific fleet. Good catch.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 2:10 pm to CDawson
quote:
Should say Pacific fleet.
Not even. He didn't get the Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers which would eventually doom him. The days of the battleships were over, naval aviation ruled the seas. They gambled and lost - badly - when the carriers weren't in port.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News