Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

You agreed that we limit guns under the same circumstances that we limit speech - when it causes harm and/or because it places people in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger. You also agreed that we also place time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of guns on public property in the interests of public safety as is relates to the use of said public property.

So, for the 3rd time
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

Well, I don't agree that is what I said. But, you can go back and try again if you want.

Yes, simple ownership/possession of a firearm certainly can increase risk of harm.

 

The necessity to maintain a professional military for the defence of the state has absolutely nothing to do with a universal right to bear 'arms' (apparently up to and including state of the art military grade weapons, according to you).

Perhaps some relevance in the frontier society that existed in the 'new world' in the 18th century, but today the 2nd amendment is an anachronistic irrelevance. [You would be better advised to attend to matters of community cohesion - eg through enabling universal above poverty level participation in the economy - rather than unrestricted arming yourself, and every other citizen, against possible criminal intrusion into your home; just a thought consequent on Trump's campaign remarks that "you are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones…"].

Non sequitur.

WillReadmore has covered the reasons for limitations of various Rights.

 

Yes man-made, but...….related to reality, which includes the ubiquitous concept of 'divinity', and the derived concept of justice...so maybe "you can do as you like" is an over-simplification.

 

Free speech has limits.
All things have limits. You already know this. You even accept those limits.

 

Use you same argument for free speech. Free speech will kill less than arms.

 

... has nothing to do with this conversation.
Your opinion that the 2nd is an anachronistic irrelevance remains unsupportable, unsound, and meaningless.

Thus: You have no interest in protecting freedom, just freedoms you like.
The others, you have no issue with trampling upon.

 

This only means you refuse to accept the truth. See post 996; here, you agree with me.

Your statement does not address the questions I asked.
For the 4th time:
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

.

 

Step up to the plate.
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

No. And neither does simple ownership of a nuke bomb. What's your point?

 

Recall that when presented with the idea that all right have limits, I agreed and said, like all rights, the right or keep and bear arms should be limited in exactly the same manner as the right to free speech.

We limit speech when it causes harm and/or when it places people in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger. We also place time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of free speech on public property in the interests of public safety as is relates to the use of said public property.

You agree that simple ownership and possession of a firearm harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger. That being the case, what argument is there for limits on the simple ownership and possession of firearms?

 

So, why aren't nukes legal then? They pose the same danger as any other arm. What case is there for limits on any arms period? Including nukes?

 

Please address the question put to you:
You agree that simple ownership and possession of a firearm harms no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger. That being the case, what argument is there for limits on the simple ownership and possession of firearms?

 

Just as with the Free Speech limitations (yelling FIRE in a crowded theater) it is not the thing so much as what people do with it. In both cases when they do so people die, but the free speech problem has been addressed an has gone away, the assault rifle/massacre issue obviously has not. When people decided Free Speech needed limitations we made laws and did it. The problem here is that many consider their guns more important than fixing the issue.

 

Step up to the plate.
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

"Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?"

you can be any religion or no religion and be liberal... is the same true of republicans?

 

some speach poses more of a risk, saying the word "bomb" on a plane for example, as do some guns, do you think Walmart should sell machine guns like soda pop?

 

Please address the questions put to you:
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

as long as the limits are not too far, for example, I am not allowed to practice the peyote religion in my home, should the government be able to outlaw religion

 

I did answer, machine guns can kill many people quickly, thus they pose a risk to society

would a bomb in your basement harm anyone, probably not, but we still have restriction on powerful bombs

heck, bullet proof vest are illegal.... why

 

Your response does not address the questions asked.
Try again.
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

He's a social liberal

 

The 2nd says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, because a "well-regulated" military is necessary for the defence of the state. It is therefore anachronistic nonsense, in an age of professional militaries.

Wrong. In fact I recognise there are other individuals in the world beside me, so 'freedom' is not absolute and must therefore be defined/delineated in a system of law.

So to your question: "how does simple possession of a firearm harm anyone?"

'Simple' possession?

Of course there is no such thing as 'simple possession' that is without consequences.

In the case of a firearm, 'simple ' possession would necessitate deactivating the trigger . Anything else complicates the mere possession of the firearm, because of risks to other individuals as well as the owner, depending on many unknown variables including state of mind of the owner, capability, and responsibility.

 

I hope you are not an American because if we had to depend on people like you to gain independence from England it would have never happened.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this meaningless and unsupportable opinion, it remains meaningless and unsupportable.
Thus, the 2nd remains in place, protecting an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, until such a time that it is repealed.
Nothing you can do or say will change this.

And, so long as you approve of their rights and freedoms, you will force people to provide the means to exercise those freedoms to others.
That is, you shall not protect, but trample upon, on the freedoms you not agree with, including forcing people into involuntary servitude.
You, indeed, hate freedom.

I already stated the right to keep and bear arms, a right equal to all other rights in every way, should be limited in the same manner and under the same circumstance as the right to free speech.
You have not addressed this in any way.

Unsupportable nonsense. I simply possess a number of firearms; said possession is w/o consequence of any kind.

More unsupportable nonsense. I simply possess a number of firearms, all of which are fully operational.

We do not limit the exercise of rights because they might harm others of cause them to be placed in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, only when hey do.
Thus, your standard is invalid.

So, I put to you again the questions you avoided:
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?