Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

Where'd you get the idea I want to limit our own militia to 3rd world nations? And by our own, I assume USA military.

The 2A to me means, the well regulated militia is the civilians needed to be called up quickly to thwart another gov't aggressor, foreign or domestic.
So to me, that means you and I, not the gov't militia.

 

The nuke argument is as absurd as the Hitler argument. Cars are weapons but not covered under the 2nd Amendment - but maybe the should be.

 

The military uses 30-round magazines. They're protected by the 2nd Amendment.

If anti-gunners spent as much time trying to change the 2nd Amendment rather than to convince people it says what a 6th-grader can read that it doesn't say, they'd probably have all of our guns by now. Thanks and keep up the good work... Yep.. go for those magazines and military weapons... We'll fight you, of course, but at least it keeps you away from the real prize.

 

I got the idea from your own fingers:

And you're wrong about what the 2nd Amendment means. It means that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

So your no line in the sand was BS. You do impose limits.

A car is not considered an arm. But a bomb is. Weapons isn't the 2A, arms is the 2A.

So spare me you have no limit BS. You have your line in the sand like everybody else.

 

Of course it does. Where did I ever say anything different?
And a civilian militia can keep and bear arms free of infringement from oppression, foreign or domestic.

This is 2X now you either don't understand what I've typed or you just want to make stuff up about what I typed.
No need for you to put words in my mouth or change anything I've typed. It's a bit dishonest.

 

I see you didn't bother to address that claymores are used by the military.
More limits you want imposed on the civilians? Another line in the sand you have?

Anti gunner. More stuff you just make up.
You have a bad habit of making stuff up. I see you have no real interest in the 2A. Only how you personally interpret it. You and your lines in the sand.

But I did say, everyone has their lines in the sand. But you said you didn't have any. Now you throw out ad hom attacks by showing your lines in the sand.

 

there is a large number of scholarly articles that examine what "arms" means in terms of the second amendment. They examine first "keep and BEAR" which rules out things like nukes and cannon or triple A batteries (not the things you put in your TV Remote). Then they look at the underlying natural right recognized in the second amendment-the right of self defense. That rules out area weapons like nukes or grenades or mortars. Meaning stuff like knives, spears, swords, Nunckucks (recently recognized as covered by the 2A in NY)and just about every hand held firearm.

 

Where would you put the limit on those limits?

 

In other words, there's interpretations to what arms are.
Seems like all of this, anything actually, is entirely subjective and subject to interpretation.
So, that makes many lines in the sand.

 

For me personally, where one can cause mass damage in a very short period of time. But I'm not active in pushing any of my opinions on this. Nor do I really have a fight in any of this. But I would like to see some way to curb or slow the deaths in mass shootings.
Still subjective.

How about you, you have any limits?

 

My limits have been met and exceeded. I will support no further restrictions on firearm ownership unless others are loosened in exchange.

 

Then you're still a gun controller.

 

I find extreme and unlikely scenarios useful in illumanting the truth of such black and white claims. For example- suppose I was able to negotiate a lift of the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, APDS rounds, SBRs and suppressors in exchange for increased restrictions on tannerite. Would that make me a 'controller' iyo?

 

Tannerite is not an arm. It's not a weapon. It's a chemical compound that is used to make everything from homemade fireworks or explosive toys to targets or to bombs. Like I said, a car can be a weapon but it's not an arm. Not everything that can be a weapon is an arm. If you support any gun restriction then you're a gun controller. If you support restrictions on any arms then you're not a 2nd Amendment supporter.

But your anti-gun stand is not just trading more restrictions on weapons of mass destruction for fewer restrictions on guns. You've already posted in other threads that you're willing to see some restrictions on firearms.

 

Nice dodge of the question. I'll presume that means you don't like your answer.

Which restrictions have I supported that weren't dependent on the loosening of others?

 

I believe the 2nd Amendment does not protect you if you use a firearm to commit murder.
Does that make me a gun controller?

 

not to those of us who really understand constitutional theory and the concept of natural law and rights. However, I will admit that some modern weapons-such as man portable SAMs due present vexing questions until you understand the concept that the right of self defense is the underlying right guaranteed in the second.

 

Defense from militia, foreign and domestic.
But I think you are saying, there are limits to arms civilians should be able to own.

Home self defense is only 1 reason for arms.

 

Fair enough.
300M people all have different lines in the sand.

 

You gave up any claims about limits to arms.
You admit to having limits to arms just like all of us.

 

yep-self defense of all kinds is the basis of the second. defending yourself from criminals, gangs, (years gone by-Indian Raids) or foreign incursions.

 

some limits are objective-such as ones that prevent citizens from having weapons that attack areas rather than an individual attacker or several attackers. I like the idea that if Civilian police have a firearm-then other civilians ought to have fairly unfettered access to it.

 

if you are not against the rules for machine guns, then you support restrictions

all I am saying is we do it with machine guns, why not ar-15's the same way

 

At time of 2A writing, I don't think there was a civilian police.
Arms for civilians were to be able to assemble ready to fight another militia. Foreign or domestic.
So, per no restrictions of 2A, that means civilians should have whatever foreign or domestic militias may have.

But as I keep saying, that isn't reality. We all have limits on what we want for arms.
And that is entirely subjective per 300M people, with 300M differing lines in the sand. And why it's a hot button topic.

My limits is to keep masses safe as possible. To not let a mass shooter put dozens of rounds down range without having to reload every 5 seconds. For if a mass shooter has to reload, he/she becomes vulnerable. Again, my opinion. My limit.