Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me."

Where the hell are you getting those stats?

The bit about "proper" semi-autos firing 60 rounds a minute.

Why? For what purpose would a civilian need such a weapon? Hunting the Flash? What kind of home invasion do people think is going to happen where they need that rate of fire?

Self-defense is a good reason. If someone is coming at you all hopped on Adrenalin one bullet isn't going to put them down unless you blow their heart or spinal cord out, and that is very unlikely.

Better to have and not need than need and not have.

This same weapon and scenario can apply to hunting too. If you get attacked by a wild, and or injured, animal you are going to need more than one round to drop it. The only way you can realistically drop anything in one shot is if you are aiming and your target is unaware of your presence. Neither is true in the case of bear/puma/boar/etc attack or a home invasion.

The second it takes you to reload could be the second you die.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

No, no there isn't.

Yes, yes, there is

The Supreme Court and the actual text of the Constitution says you are very very wrong.

The supreme court, and a conservative judge, are trying to second guess the intentions of a man (James Madison) from 250 years ago.

The primary evidence from the time, and there's a lot of it, shows that Madison's intentions were to have the militia at the fore-front of national defence.

I cited the Pennsylvania constitution, the pacifist clause that Madison wanted as part of the 2nd, and the fact that having defeated the British army, the Americans were in mood to have their own standing army marching around.

Gun laws get complicated because of the post-civil war terror attacks on African Americans, and the clause in the 14th amendment that stopped the southern states from denying African-Americans access to firearms.

We really need a thread on this

Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?

Why am I still arguing about this? That's a better question

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

You misspelled drugs.

Drugs are the reason are crime rate is so high.

You'd have to be on drugs to say that with a straight face

When did you move to America? Do you enjoy our freedom fries?

Gang related, dude. In Chicago alone it's 65% of the shootings.

Gangs are about protecting their turf and selling drugs to people.

You obviously aren't familiar with the definition of Militia.

The militia at the time was the citizens, all of them. Later they became more organized and morphed into the national guard, but the original definition is still "all the citizens".

Ergo, its clearly an individual right to bear arms. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

You mean words don't just mean what I assume they do??

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?

If you live in a state that allows NFA registered weapons, and pay the $200 tax stamp and the ludicrous asking price for such weapons - a legal select fire rifle starts at around $20k USD and goes up from there - then nothing is stopping you from doing so.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You obviously aren't familiar with the definition of Militia.

The militia at the time was the citizens, all of them. Later they became more organized and morphed into the national guard, but the original definition is still "all the citizens".

Ergo, its clearly an individual right to bear arms. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Could blacks and women buy and bear arms back then?

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?

Why am I still arguing about this? That's a better question

Given that they've never been used in a crime, why not?

Criminals could easily get full auto weapons from Mexico, and enough are floating around the US as well. But they don't. Criminals prefer handguns in the vast majority of cases. The only people who want automatic weapons are law abiding citizens.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Why not have full auto then? SAWs? Ma deuces with five hundred round ammo boxes?

Why am I still arguing about this? That's a better question

Because government has infringed on the ability of Citizens to own and manufactur full-auto firearms for quite some time. As a result, legal full-auto firearms are rare and expensive, and require lots of paperwork to acquire.

If I could own one at a reasonable price, you bet I would.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You obviously aren't familiar with the definition of Militia.

The militia at the time was the citizens, all of them. Later they became more organized and morphed into the national guard, but the original definition is still "all the citizens".

Ergo, its clearly an individual right to bear arms. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Could blacks and women buy and bear arms back then?

Yes.

Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

No, no there isn't.

Yes, yes, there is

It's odd you're still bringing this up when you explicitly asked this just two weeeks ago, I explained the supreme court ruling on it that definitively answered that question, and here you are doing it again. A man with a lower opinion of humanity that I would assume you are intentionally threadcrapping or trolling, but I have a naive hope in the human spirit that allows that perhaps you simply forgot. Suffice it to say, your argument has been definitively and conclusively been rejected by the US Supreme Court and since it took them approximately 200 years to get to that ruling, I don't expect them to revisit them soon. As such, is is settled law.

No trolling on my part - just having a reasoned debate on the 2nd amendment. I understand that some Americans take their rights and freedoms seriously, and I respect that, but that doesn't mean to say we can't talk about these issues in a civil manner.

Settled law and moral law are two different things entirely. Just because SCOTUS ruled on something, doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion. After all, SCOTUS ruled on Dredd Scott, and ruled on separate but equal...

Completely different issue for sure, but proof that SCOTUS is not infallible.

Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd is his interpretation. Another judge in future could settle it another way.

What do you mean by "moral law"?

 kronk wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

You misspelled drugs.

Drugs are the reason are crime rate is so high.

You'd have to be on drugs to say that with a straight face

When did you move to America? Do you enjoy our freedom fries?

Gang related, dude. In Chicago alone it's 65% of the shootings.

Gangs are about protecting their turf and selling drugs to people.

I'm sitting in the middle of Scotland! I have no idea why I have the USA flag. I think it's because I logged in from my new phone the other day


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
What do you mean by "moral law"?

Godwin's law again

For example, the Nazis passed many laws discriminating against Jews. They became laws, but that doesn't mean to say they were right.

Not so long ago, it was legal to own slaves in a certain country, but then some guys called Grant and Sherman came along

Those are some interesting examples, you seem to be arguing for and against might is right in the same post.

 Manchu wrote:
Those are some interesting examples, you seem to be arguing for and against might is right in the same post.

Just making the point that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's 'right.'

I'm not comparing SCOTUS to Nazi Germany, because SCOTUS is governed by checks and balances, but you can't deny that SCOTUS is vastly different from its original conception and has become far too politicised over the years, which is never a good thing for a judiciary.

Wait, Wal-Mart sells guns?
I did not know that. Then again I do live in NY, so they might not here.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just making the point that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's 'right.'

Sure but then again no one has argued otherwise ITT.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not comparing SCOTUS to Nazi Germany

Well but actually you just did. It's just that now you seem to be realizing that was silly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Criminals could easily get full auto weapons from Mexico, and enough are floating around the US as well. But they don't. Criminals prefer handguns in the vast majority of cases.

They'd certainly steal full-auto weapons if they happened to find some during a burglary, but that's why there's requirements for how those things should be stored. Expensive stuff is good loot. But not so good to use for crime - "a man with a gun" already draws police, "a man with a machine gun" will bring in SWAT, FBI, ATF and all other sorts of nasty things. And ofc, dumping a 100$ handgun hurts a lot less than dumping a 20K$+ piece of hardware, even if it was stolen to begin with.

Thread Topic: Capitalism

Thread Discussion: 2nd Amendment

But the thread was pretty much off-topic from the actual article by post 1.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sorry but- here's the definiton for your 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Class dismissed.

That's the important part of the amendment right there.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Criminals could easily get full auto weapons from Mexico, and enough are floating around the US as well. But they don't. Criminals prefer handguns in the vast majority of cases.

They'd certainly steal full-auto weapons if they happened to find some during a burglary, but that's why there's requirements for how those things should be stored. Expensive stuff is good loot. But not so good to use for crime - "a man with a gun" already draws police, "a man with a machine gun" will bring in SWAT, FBI, ATF and all other sorts of nasty things. And ofc, dumping a 100$ handgun hurts a lot less than dumping a 20K$+ piece of hardware, even if it was stolen to begin with.

Exactly. And even if they were legal to purchase freely, which would make them cheaper, they'd still be wildly impractical to use in a crime.

And its rarely $100 handguns. More like $40-50 if that. You can pick up a gun pretty damn cheap if you know the right people, being criminals who redistribute guns among other criminals.

Criminals we see in the movies robbing banks with SAWs and MP5s don't exist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Criminals we see in the movies robbing banks with SAWs and MP5s don't exist.

There was that pair who had heavy armor and AKs, which inspired the SWAT movie.


But, they are definitely an extreme rarity.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
A small step in the right direction...

Well THAT'S a fething loaded introduction...

This thread'll be fun.

Actually, I agree. The sooner we get rid of AR-15s from Walmart shelves and replace them with Israeli made bullpups like the Tavor, the sooner I'll buy a gun at Walmart.

I love me some Bullpup.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sorry but- here's the definiton for your 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Class dismissed.

That's the important part of the amendment right there.

No, the entire amendment, every word of it, is of equal importance. The minute anyone declares a part of an amendment is somehow more important than another part of it lessens that right. I do not say this in regards to this amendment in particular, but for all of them in general.

 Breotan wrote:

Actually, I agree. The sooner we get rid of AR-15s from Walmart shelves and replace them with Israeli made bullpups like the Tavor, the sooner I'll buy a gun at Walmart.

Have an exalt for that!

I would definitely love to have something of that quality more readily available, though it would require me to ignore my personal boycott of Walmart

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sorry but- here's the definiton for your 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Class dismissed.

That's the important part of the amendment right there.

No, the entire amendment, every word of it, is of equal importance. The minute anyone declares a part of an amendment is somehow more important than another part of it lessens that right. I do not say this in regards to this amendment in particular, but for all of them in general.

The first part is why we have the amendment, the second is that actual 'rule' contained within. Its a qualifier for the second half

Careful. You might have to explain how dependent and independent clauses work.

And I'm not digging out my old English textbooks.