- 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
We're all in favor of our right to bear arms being infringed.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:19 am
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:19 am
I was having a gun control discussion yesterday and someone pointed this out when I brought up gun ownership being an unalienable right becaise of the 2A.
The argument was essentially that it's already illegal to own certain kinds of guns, it's illegal to own bombs, it's illegal to own missiles, etc.
If we truly believed that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." literally means that all restrictions violate the 2A, then any laws prohibiting owning any weapon are unconstitutional. Clearly, no one believes that. No one thinks individuals should be able to own a nuclear missile or an arsenal of bombs.
So we've ALREADY accepted that their are reasonable restrictions that can exist within the 2A. It's just a matter of scope about how much is too much.
I know I'm probably not telling many people something they don't already know. But I just wanted to point out that "the slippery slope" everyone is so worried about if any new restrictions are put in place, already exists. There's already limits, weapons control already happens under the 2A, so arguing that amy gun control is unconstitutional is wrong. It's all a matter of scope.
The argument was essentially that it's already illegal to own certain kinds of guns, it's illegal to own bombs, it's illegal to own missiles, etc.
If we truly believed that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." literally means that all restrictions violate the 2A, then any laws prohibiting owning any weapon are unconstitutional. Clearly, no one believes that. No one thinks individuals should be able to own a nuclear missile or an arsenal of bombs.
So we've ALREADY accepted that their are reasonable restrictions that can exist within the 2A. It's just a matter of scope about how much is too much.
I know I'm probably not telling many people something they don't already know. But I just wanted to point out that "the slippery slope" everyone is so worried about if any new restrictions are put in place, already exists. There's already limits, weapons control already happens under the 2A, so arguing that amy gun control is unconstitutional is wrong. It's all a matter of scope.
16
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:22 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
So we've ALREADY accepted that their are reasonable restrictions that can exist within the 2A.
We've already accepted reasonable restrictions on the 1st as well, and all of our Rights.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:23 am to Tigereye10005
Articulate what guns get banned in a "reasonable" scope that result in a significant decrease in gun deaths in this country....
I'll give you a hint, handguns are responsible for >50% of gun deaths. You want to ban handguns, that's viewed to be an unreasonable scope based on Heller vs. DC.
I'll give you a hint, handguns are responsible for >50% of gun deaths. You want to ban handguns, that's viewed to be an unreasonable scope based on Heller vs. DC.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:23 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
We've already accepted reasonable restrictions on the 1st as well, and all of our Rights
Yep. That's absolutely true.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:24 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
I know I'm probably not telling many people something they don't already know. But I just wanted to point out that "the slippery slope" everyone is so worried about if any new restrictions are put in place, already exists. There's already limits, weapons control already happens under the 2A, so arguing that amy gun control is unconstitutional is wrong. It's all a matter of scope.
the 2nd Amendment is, by far, the most regulated of our fundamental rights
we can add more regulations as soon as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th are as regulated
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:24 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
so arguing that amy gun control is unconstitutional is wrong. It's all a matter of scope.
Gun control is not the same as nuclear weapon or MOAB control.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:25 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
If we truly believed that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." literally means that all restrictions violate the 2A, then any laws prohibiting owning any weapon are unconstitutional.
Not necessarily. Depending on what theory of constitutional interpretation you subscribe to, "arms" doesn't necessarily mean any conceivable weapon.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:25 am to Tigereye10005
I don't know why they don't warn the new shills that.concern trolling doesnt work here. This place will be bought out and or shut down if we ever have another democratic president and prominent posters are on their purge lists I'm sure.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:30 am to GeneralLee
quote:
Articulate what guns get banned in a "reasonable" scope that result in a significant decrease in gun deaths in this country
Well we can start with the obvious.
-bombs
-missiles
-grenades
-fully automatic guns
-exploding rounds
I think most would agree that restrictions on owning those save many lives.
After that it's more murky And there's no clear answer.
Many people would say
-extended mags
-semi automatic long rifles
-stricter background checks
-etc etc
I'm not sure if I agree with those, but I'm just pointing out that the argument is about whether those would work or not, the argument is not about constitutionality. We already know that gun control is constitutional in many forms.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:31 am to Tigereye10005
I always viewed the second second amendment, at its core, to mean that you have the fundamental right to defend yourself. That you are not required to outsource your self preservation to government.
You have the right to bear arms because they are effective tools of self-defense. But atomic weapons and bombs are fundamentally offensive weapons. If your home is being attacked, and you drop a bomb on the attacker, you die all the same. It’s sinply not an effective defensive tool. Guns obviously don’t operate the same way. Which is why I’ve always found this tired argument hilariously misguided.
You have the right to bear arms because they are effective tools of self-defense. But atomic weapons and bombs are fundamentally offensive weapons. If your home is being attacked, and you drop a bomb on the attacker, you die all the same. It’s sinply not an effective defensive tool. Guns obviously don’t operate the same way. Which is why I’ve always found this tired argument hilariously misguided.
This post was edited on 2/19/18 at 9:34 am
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:33 am to Tigereye10005
quote:
I was having a gun control discussion yesterday and someone pointed this out when I brought up gun ownership being an unalienable right becaise of the 2A.
The argument was essentially that it's already illegal to own certain kinds of guns, it's illegal to own bombs, it's illegal to own missiles, etc.
If we truly believed that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." literally means that all restrictions violate the 2A, then any laws prohibiting owning any weapon are unconstitutional. Clearly, no one believes that. No one thinks individuals should be able to own a nuclear missile or an arsenal of bombs.
So we've ALREADY accepted that their are reasonable restrictions that can exist within the 2A. It's just a matter of scope about how much is too much.
I know I'm probably not telling many people something they don't already know. But I just wanted to point out that "the slippery slope" everyone is so worried about if any new restrictions are put in place, already exists. There's already limits, weapons control already happens under the 2A, so arguing that amy gun control is unconstitutional is wrong. It's all a matter of scope.
You can say the same thing about the First Amendment.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:33 am to Aristo
quote:
Gun control is not the same as nuclear weapon or MOAB control.
Yet one of the most common arguments I've seen on this board and elsewhere that any restriction on a right to bear arms is unconstitutional. If that's true, than why do we differentiate between guns, nukes, and MOABs? The 2A sure doesn't.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:37 am to Tigereye10005
Defensive capabilities
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:37 am to Tigereye10005
Lifetime odds of death
Heart Disease and Cancer 1 in 7
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 1 in 28
Intentional Self-harm 1 in 95
Unintentional Poisoning by and Exposure to Noxious Substances 1 in 96
Motor Vehicle Crash 1 in 114
Fall 1 in 127
Assault by Firearm 1 in 370
Car Occupant 1 in 645
Pedestrian Incident 1 in 647
Motorcycle Rider Incident 1 in 985
Unintentional Drowning and Submersion 1 in 1,188
Exposure to Fire, Flames or Smoke 1 in 1,498
Choking from Inhalation and Ingestion of Food 1 in 3,461
Pedacyclist Incident 1 in 4,486
Firearms Discharge 1 in 6,905
Air and Space Transport Incidents 1 in 9,821
Mass Shooting 1 in 11,125
Exposure to Electric Current, Radiation, Temperature and Pressure 1 in 15,212
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:37 am to Tigereye10005
Many citizens own tanks, anti tank artillery pieces, anti aircraft pieces, howitzers and all sorts of shite. The only restriction is $
Ever heard of tannerite? 100 pounds of it will level a fricking house. You can buy it at walmart
Ever heard of tannerite? 100 pounds of it will level a fricking house. You can buy it at walmart
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:37 am to Tigereye10005
Define bombs, because it's completely legal to own fireworks, and various other explosives with the proper paperwork.
Again, fully automatic weapons before 1983 are legal too. You can even legally own flamethrowers.
Again, fully automatic weapons before 1983 are legal too. You can even legally own flamethrowers.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:38 am to Tigereye10005
Nun-chucks are illegal.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:38 am to moneyg
quote:
You can say the same thing about the First Amendment
That’s absolutely true.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:39 am to Tigereye10005
I can see a clear line between firearms and explosives (nukes and missiles). With that said the manufacture ban on full autos I do have a problem with.
This post was edited on 2/19/18 at 9:40 am
Posted on 2/19/18 at 9:41 am to Jcorye1
quote:
Define bombs, because it's completely legal to own fireworks, and various other explosives with the proper paperwork.
Again, fully automatic weapons before 1983 are legal too. You can even legally own flamethrowers
So you're saying that it's not illegal to own all types of bombs, just illegal to buy certain ones? Hm. I wonder how they're able differentiate without violating the 2A?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News