Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by chris155au, Nov 10, 2020.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    26,498
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What form of injury?
     
  2. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    3,848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because in many leftists eyes what they do is all justified and therefore not terrorism. Since he disagrees with those on the right then they are terrorists.

    That's what I gather anyways from reading his posts.
     
    CCitizen and chris155au like this.
  3. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Even among America's individual states, valid comparisons cannot be made as the demographics and ethnic make ups between Massachusetts & Florida, for example, are also as different as Mars is to Earth.

    It's not the guns or draconian gun laws that make the difference, its the degree to which a state is infected by a criminal element.
    You'll notice, I hope, that wealthier states have lower homicide rates than states with more poverty.

    People have been devising ways to kill each other since the beginning of time with much more readily accessible weapons than firearms.
    For example, the single and deadliest civilian massacre on record was committed not with a firearm but with a simple $1.00 worth of gasoline:

    "Happy Land fire"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

    Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,864
    Likes Received:
    13,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slander does not fall under the definition of "free speech" - therefore, a limitation on slander does not in any way translate to a limitation on the right to free speech, as protected by the 1st.
    Nukes do not fall under the definition of "arms" - therefore, a limitation on nuclear weapons does not in any way translate to a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd.
    Same / same
     
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,864
    Likes Received:
    13,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you believe George Washington would have been taken exception to the idea that each of his militiamen owned and had in his possession an AR15?
    Do you believe George Washington would have been taken exception to the idea that each of his frontier families had an AR15 (or three) above their transom?
    Please explain your answers.
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,864
    Likes Received:
    13,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do not understand you have the right to harm someone who does not constitute an immediate threat to you or your safety?
     
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have state laws that differ from Fed laws because of the practical difference in states. Only those states with few people can get away with weaker gun laws. It’s naive to think heavily populated areas can. Stricter gun laws result in less gun violence. It’s also a valid coronation in industrialized nations of the world. You’ll find NO studies that say otherwise except those sponsored indirectly of directly by gun dealers.

    It’s obvious. We have more guns per capita then any democratic nation. By nra logic, we should have less gun violence.....we don’t.

    Yapping away about how people die otherwise is a useless diversion.

    https://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/fewer-guns-mean-fewer-gun-homicides
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  8. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Name left wing terrorism that compares with the right. Our own govt. agencies tasked with protecting our nation work off the same premise. Right wingers have a history of more danger. Geesus, 9/11 was sponsored by a right wing foreign source. I hope we know the difference between right and left politically. Fascism is right wing. Dictators are right wing. Democracies and personal freedom are the left.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,864
    Likes Received:
    13,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unsupportable nonsense.
    As usual.
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,864
    Likes Received:
    13,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot demonstrate this to be the case,
     
  11. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Supported by every non nra funded study. If you bothered to read the references posted you’d see so. You have supplied nothing.

    Turn down the volume on Fix News.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  12. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founders only referred to well regulated armed militia. I am not sure the founding father considered individual rights for fire arms, not because they would not support it, but because it was not an issue in the 18th century. They wanted everyone to voluntarily be part of a well regulated militia to defend the country's rights and liberty. Thus they expected everyone to own or possess arms to protect the country. They lived in times where standing professional armies often served corrupt individuals. We were slightly more than a decade before the french revolution. The world they lived in and came from was fraught with corrupt leaders using professional soldiers to oppose the people and deprived them of liberty. They wanted none of that for America. The purpose of the militia and thus the 2A was to protect the people against corrupt leaders both foreign and domestic. Thus ANY weapons needed to accomplish that goal was fair game.
     
  13. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The types of weapons would not have mattered. The idea was for the militia to have all the weapons necessary to protect the country from threats to liberty both foreign and domestic. The founders would expect that to include the most advanced weapons of the period. So yes, nukes, jet fighters, tanks, lasers, starships, everything.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  14. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, gun free zones in public buildings and those declared by private businesses and supported by local, state and federal laws.
    Why would anyone doubt the efficacy of not allowing firearms on air planes or in prisons, federal buildings, elementary schools by children and in mental institutions. That’s what deregulation looks like. It’s obvious firearm possession is not absolute nor should it be.
    Look up the difference between left wing and right wing definitions politically.
     
  15. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with everything except that everyone should posses a firearm to that end. Well regulated has meaning. As a former member of both a militia reenactment company and a national guard unit, I can tell you members of neither are free to posses weapons they normally use in warfare.

    It was assumed that hunting, self defense etc. were personal choices like owning a saw or hammer for building. But, just like many tools in construction are regulated for use by the Fed, state and local governments, so aren’t tools for defense and hunting. It’s what governments decide is best for the public good.

    Personal ownership of weapons is not addressed what do ever in any context in the constitution. Militia groups are formal entities now and they were back then.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  16. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Re:
    Of course fewer guns result in fewer incidents of gun violence but the violence/homicide rate remains unaffected. However, if our collective Goal is to reduce violence/homicides, it should not matter what the weapon is unless the real agenda is a totalitarian gun ban.

    In other words, banning guns only may reduce gun violence but the rate of violence/homicides remains the same as determined killers will just resort to other, deadlier weapons like $1.00 worth of gasoline and death rates could possibly increase as killers resort to simple home made bombs or Molotov cocktails that kill a greater number of people.

    Please remember that the killer at the "Happy Land" fire only intended to kill one, specific person. If he had access to a gun, there would only have been one death instead of 87. Incidents like that would simply be more widespread if firearms became less available since determined killers will always kill.

    The US is the only country in the world with a 2nd Amendment and widespread gun ownership however there are over 50 countries in the world that have strict gun bans and far higher homicide rates.
    If widespread private gun ownership was responsible for homicides, then America would lead the world in homicide rates but it doesn't.....why?
     
  17. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let’s not throw the word “ banning” out there like it is constitutionally valid and what the Fed, state and local govt. have as a process of regulating firearms.

    Just because a municipality regulates a firearm type, it’s not banning. The SC always establishes that the 2A is not absolute and people are subject to regulation.
     
  18. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am just giving my opinion on what I believe the founders envisioned with the 2A. The problem is people are trying to adapt that thinking into a modern world giving too much credence to the words and not the ideals.
     
  19. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. We were allowed to posses our muskets in some cases and be personally responsible for them but weren’t allowed to take a cannon home or possess surplus amounts of powder we needed for their use. Which firearms we had personally was regulated.
     
  20. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We needed to study the practices of our founding fathers in the militia company reenactment for authenticity.
    Even though militia companies were voluntary, once you “ enlisted” your behavior was subject to regulation, even including the support personnel which is the main reason for having an organized militia.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  21. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me ask you this. If the purpose of the 2A was for a militia to protect the people of the US and not a professional army, what would we do if a foreign power tried to enslave the people using canons? Would we simply us muskets only or whatever weapon was necessary to defend the people?
     
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember, the constitution provides for a militia which today are our reserve and guard units found in every state. It does not preclude the formation of a standing army necessary as defense vs other nations with standing armies. Standing armies are nothing more then professional full time soldiers without civilian entanglements. Our Militia supports our standing army. When activated, you then become, a professional soldier.
     
  23. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember too, Washington commanded a standing army to fight Great Britain is 1775. Militias are state entities that can be called into support for for a standing army. The reason is simple. It gave states local access to an army in local disputes, and if wars required more personel then those who served professionally, you could activate the militia.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  24. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founders were against a standing professional army because that meant whoever the leader was could use them to control the people. That in my opinion is the whole purpose of the 2A. To protect the people in case someone formed a professional army. The thinking was a paid professionals would served their masters, not the people. There were too many examples of that happening in the world they lived in. The idea was, when needed, the people would have the power necessary to protect the people from all threats foreign and domestic. Their world view may not apply today but that was the world they lived in.

    https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  25. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    16,950
    Likes Received:
    4,013
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems pretty unlikely. They used it to defeat Great Britain. Our revolutionary forces contained both a standing Army and military groups from the states. What our founding fathers were against was a too powerful central government. They then provided for militia groups so states could have their own armies for internal strife then SUPPORT and coordinate with federal forces vs foreign govs. In any guard Unit, the final authority is the president of the US and to the constitution of the US.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020

Share This Page