Second Amendment has no limits? NOT!!!

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

white mans sporting rifles.

Jesus H. Christ, you just can't restrain yourself, can you?

Look down the line.... tell me what you see here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S0nWtYvMkA

You want to take this away from us?

Meanwhile you neglect to do community policing here when handguns are being used on the street to shoot at dozens of people, not just one night, but just about every weekend..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/15/person-interest-dc-drive-shooting-turns-himself/

I can see why you can't contain yourself with your swearing and using racial slurs. You just can handle the truth.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

You just can handle the truth.

(Assuming, before you edit it, that you meant "can't")
Yes, yes. I'm sure you think I want you on that wall; I need you on that wall!
Well, I don't.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Why is it that I cannot buy an RPG launcher and the rounds for it?

Incorrect assumption that you can't. There is one for sale in the gun store closest to my office. You are only limited by your desire, ability to pass a background check and $$.

With enough $$ you can buy a nuke "legally"... in theory.

There is a somewhat clearly established body of US law that regulates weaponry owned by citizens. Prior to that law there was a set of founding principals, one of those was articulated as the right to bear arms. It's only natural that some people would like to abridge that right, do so with the law and do so with good intent. However, that does not mean they are right. How has the war on drugs turned out?


"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

People can't own nukes. Ok. People can't own RPG's. Ok. People can't own automatic weapons. Ok. People can't own semi-automatic weapons that are capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. Ok. People are not allowed to own micro-wave or laser devices that could fatally harm another. Ok.

People can't own any "weapons". Ok.....can you assure the rest of society that no harm will come to them because there are no legally available weapons?

Liberty is delicate and as such must be treated with care. I think it's been referred to as a tree, though I don't necessarily agree with the watering prescription.

[blueblur 0]

Quote

>I'll take my chances.

Sounds good.

> I do have a daughter and I would bet she is trained on firearms better
>than a vast majority of liberals on this forum.

Also cool. I hope she is better trained than these people:
=======================
Pataskala firearms instructor shoots self
Jun 5, 2012

ZANESVILLE -- A seasoned firearms instructor accidentally shot himself in the right leg Sunday during a firearm course at a local shooting range.

According to the Muskingum County Sheriff's Office, Michael D. Craig, 59, owner and instructor at Ohio Shooting Sports, was showing students at Briar Rabbit Shooting Sports on Granger Hill Road how to take a defensive stand and shoot close to a target.
=======================
Firearms training officer accidentally shoots himself
Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 2:08 PM

GREEN, Ohio -- A firearms instructor accidentally shot himself in the thigh during a training session at the Summit County Sheriff's Office training facility Tuesday.

Sheriff's Inspector William Holland said the officer works for the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy, but declined to identify him.

Holland said at 11:41 a.m., the trainer "inadvertently shot himself in the leg while conducting a training session. The officer unholstered his weapon and discharged a round into his upper thigh."
========================
LEO Firearms Instructor Accidently Kills Student

BRENDEN SAGER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Recruits in a Cobb County police firearms class were worried about an instructor's teaching methods moments before he shot and killed a member of the class, an investigative report released Friday shows.
=========================

And Dale Earnhardt died at 180mph in Daytona in a race, Dan Wheldon died in a race, Marco Simoncelli died in a MotoGP race. All world class drivers/riders. Outlaw NASCAR and MotoGP, hell all cars and bikes if the professionals can die, no one should have access to these deadly objects!

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[rushmc 23]

what books should we ban?

What internet sites should be closed?

What cable news sites should be shut down

Or, does the first amendment cover this?

Maybe not?

Cause no right is absolute?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Why is it that I can’t buy a 20mm cannon and explosive rounds for it, as a citizen of the USA?

You can as long as you pay the $200 transfer tax on the canon and each round of ammunition (non-explosive rounds aren't inherently destructive devices subject to the making and transfer taxes).

Quote

Why is it that I cannot buy an automatic weapon over the counter from any gun store in the USA?

Legislative restrictions on the market (weapons transferable to people without federal firearms licenses must have been made before 1986) have artificially increased the price of nice automatic rifles to $10,000 - $20,000 each so there's not enough market for every gun store to deal in them. Provided that you have the money, live in a free state, and pay your $200 transfer tax you're welcome to one.

As of 1994 there were 240,000 legal privately owned machine guns in America. Since 1934 only two have been used in murders, the most recent in 1989 by a corrupt Ohio police officer who used his personal MAC-10 to murder an informant.

You could also get a type 07 Federal Firearms License (the hard part), become a class 2 Special Occupational Tax payer (the expensive part at $500/year), and make one yourself.

Quote

Why is it that I cannot buy an RPG launcher and the rounds for it?

Because it's not made in America.

Private companies use recoilless rifles with explosive warheads for avalanche control.

Quote

Could it be that the Second Amendment is not absolute?

Market forces have more to do with it.

Quote

These facts take the current political discourse from one of the RWC absolutes (no restrictions of any kind at all, EVER) into the real world. The one where regulation of weapons is already in place, and can be extended as needed. As weapons technology has expanded, the need for regulating the hardware available is part of the responsibility of our elected representatives. A reasonable level of regulation that preserves public safety is what government is supposed to do.

Even if we accepted "shall not be infringed" as not absolute and that prior restraint was acceptable (we don't limit internet access because some one might use it advocate violence against our leaders or chemically castrate law abiding men because they might rape a woman) we'd disagree on the definition of reasonable.

According to Dianne Feinstein (who as the federal assault weapon ban sponsor lacks motivation to under-estimate) 385 people have been killed by assault weapons since 2004, or 43 a year.

To put that in perspective:

In 2010 there were 32,885 motor vehicle fatalities of which 48% 15784 were not the driver. 4,500 of those were pedestrians and cyclists.

Alcohol was involved in 32% of auto fatalities, or 5050 non-driver fatalities assuming uniform distribution of circumstances. We don't ban it, although we make it illegal to use it irresponsibly by drinking and driving. Speeding was involved in 31%, or 4893 non-driver fatalities. We don't put GPS controlled speed governors in cars, although we do make it illegal to drive cars capable of 135+ MPH faster than the speed limit.

Regulating law-abiding citizens' ownership of firearms used to kill orders of magnitude fewer people is unreasonable given the governments' treatment of more dangerous objects.

[Boomerdog 0]

Well, do you have the money to buy a 20mm cannon, a fighter jet or perhaps a nuclear weapon. More than likely you don't and I don't have the money either. On the other hand would you like to have those weapons be used against your fellow countrymen? Something tells me you would not and neither would I. Except for nuclear weapons, military/paramilitary weapons have been used against US Citizens. Sometimes for good legitimate reasons and sometimes NOT so and in such cases, resulting investigations have called to question the moral authority of those in authority at the time, to govern. The Second Amendment exists to ensure the Government at all levels will never enjoy a monopoly on violence. The Second Amendment exists to keep our elected public servants in check so that they behave themselves in accordance with the Supreme Law of the Land, The US Constitution. We are a governed people NOT a ruled people. 300 million guns are in possession of 80 million Americans. There are a limited number of tanks, 20 mm cannons out there. Yes they can do a lot of damage but as Karl von Clausewitz aptly stated in his classic treatise, "On War," "Quantity has a quality all of its own!" We have a wonderful system of Government here but let's keep it that way and if you believe it can't happen here, then you are whistling past the graveyard of history. Don't let our Democracy devolve into two wolves and a pig voting on what to have for breakfast.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

what books should we ban?

What internet sites should be closed?

What cable news sites should be shut down

Or, does the first amendment cover this?

Maybe not?

Cause no right is absolute?

Yeah, the First Amendment actually has a bunch of limitations.

It doesn't protect obscenity, defamation, time/place/manner restrictions on speech (so long as they're content neutral), false advertising, incitement of illegal activities...

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

what books should we ban?

What internet sites should be closed?

What cable news sites should be shut down

Or, does the first amendment cover this?

Maybe not?

Cause no right is absolute?

Yeah, the First Amendment actually has a bunch of limitations.

It doesn't protect obscenity, defamation, time/place/manner restrictions on speech (so long as they're content neutral), false advertising, incitement of illegal activities...

I think you had better recondisider your blanket statment here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>what books should we ban?

Child porn books.

>What internet sites should be closed?

Child porn sites.

>What cable news sites should be shut down

Cable news sites that give detailed instructions on how to kill political leaders, complete with times they will be at home and which family member is in which elementary school. (Fortunately none that I know of do this.)

Any other questions?

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

I think you had better recondisider your blanket statment here

Erm... Why? I can provide citations. Can you?

Check out:

Miller v. California (1973) (on obscenity).

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) (on commercial speech).

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (defamation with respect to public figures); Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1988) (defamation with respect to non-public figures).

Ward v Rock Against Racism (1989), Feiner v New York (1951) Watchtower Bible v Stratton (2002), City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent (1984), City of Ladue v Gilleo (1994), and Madsen v Women's Health Center (1994) (all on time, place, manner restrictions).

So.... ummm what's wrong with my blanket statement exactly?

Edited to fix citation error.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]It doesn't protect obscenity, defamation, time/place/manner restrictions on speech (so long as they're content neutral), false advertising, incitement of illegal activities...

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

[Reply]It doesn't protect obscenity, defamation, time/place/manner restrictions on speech (so long as they're content neutral), false advertising, incitement of illegal activities...

.....

If the First Amendment was treated the way people want the Second Amendment treated, there would be proposals for an "assault words" ban, after finding that there are words out there with a tendency to breach peace and security and can be regarded as terroristic, seditious and/or other threatening.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

you would starve to death in our system.

Like the Jews did?


Don't ever set me up like that again...

Yawn .... Not your best reply. Shyster.

jehovah's witnesses, then. or russians? or priests? should we go on? gypsies? negroes?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[lawrocket 3]

It boggles my mind that a German would claim moral superiority of government over anything...

Yes, when I hear a german say I would starve in his system, fairly recent history suggests he's being absolutely earnest.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>It boggles my mind that a German would claim moral superiority of government
>over anything...

Heck, most Americans tout civil rights for blacks.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>It boggles my mind that a German would claim moral superiority of government
>over anything...

Heck, most Americans tout civil rights for blacks.

that is funny for the exact same reason

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

It boggles my mind that a German would claim moral superiority of government over anything...

Yes, when I hear a german say I would starve in his system, fairly recent history suggests he's being absolutely earnest.

No need to overstrain your brain. All I wanted to say is:

Bad work > no money > no bread > you're dead.

That's more or less a sweeping meaning while talking about someones quality in work.

I was talking about you. Sometimes, it's a bit of advantage if you understand foreign languages and/or meanings.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It boggles my mind that a German would claim moral superiority of government over anything...

Yes, when I hear a german say I would starve in his system, fairly recent history suggests he's being absolutely earnest.

That's right, not like they are as morally sound as Team America...Fuck Yeah.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

You might want to research what you are allowed to own here in America. As your examples are allowed. You just have to jump thru a few more hoops to do it.

In other words, you concede that the second amendment DOES have limits, and that regulation of arms available to the average citizen has and does occur. Good job. You are starting to get the point.

The point being that regulation of weapons and ammunition is already part of the existing body of law. Those regulations can, and should be revisited from time to time as technology and society evolve.

How's about a bit of that "original intent" bullshit added to the mix?

A reasonable argument can be made that the "origianl intent" of the second amendment was to ensure that the average citizen, with his muzzle loading, single shot flintlock soothbore would be able to hang on to it as part of a well regulated militia. The "original intent" of 2nd Amendment certainly didn't cover rifled barrels, bullet cartridges, semiautomatic and automatic firing mechanisms, etc. Those would be illegal by "original intent" and would have to be covered under a seperate body of law.

"Original Intent" sure is fun, isn't it?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...The point being that regulation of weapons and ammunition is already part of the existing body of law. Those regulations can, and should be revisited from time to time as technology and society evolve.

How's about a bit of that "original intent" bullshit added to the mix?

A reasonable argument can be made that the "origianl intent" of the second amendment was to ensure that the average citizen, with his muzzle loading, single shot flintlock soothbore would be able to hang on to it as part of a well regulated militia. The "original intent" of 2nd Amendment certainly didn't cover rifled barrels, bullet cartridges, semiautomatic and automatic firing mechanisms, etc. Those would be illegal by "original intent" and would have to be covered under a seperate body of law.

"Original Intent" sure is fun, isn't it?

Well, when you consider that muzzle loading flintlock rifles (there were rifles at the time) were the state of the art, leading edge technology for military arms, then yes, the original intent was that civilians be able to possess the exact same arms that the military did. And the SC, in the "Miller" decision upheld that position. They said, more or less, that military weapons were protected by the 2nd.

By your argument, the 4th protection against unreasonable searches wouldn't apply to any electronic communication (wiretap or cell intercepts) or electronic storage (like computers) because they didn't exist at the time.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

It boggles my mind that a German would claim moral superiority of government over anything...

Yes, when I hear a german say I would starve in his system, fairly recent history suggests he's being absolutely earnest.

That's right, not like they are as morally sound as Team America...Fuck Yeah.

But of course! I'm well aware of how well we treated Native Americans. And I sure as hell am not holding all the stuff America has done. I objected to it with the previous president and I object to it now with the current president.

The history of the US ain't grand. But I'd like to see Germany go for a century without committing genocide before I look to that culture as a beacon of enlightenment. With fairly recent world history, America may be in the gutter but we're certainly not looking up at Germans as fine examples.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sfzombie 3]

loved the post about attacking one amendment in order to allow attacks on others. of course you know this is not the first one to be used as a stepping stone to others. the 4th has been abridged significantly. and from the looks of some of the laws on the books regarding marijuana, it looks like the 10th may have been under attack for much longer.

and i am glad to see that someone could properly interpret "original intent" of the 2d. having gone back last week and re-read the federalist papers, i am surprised how the issues have not changed much at all. most of the concerns hamilton had then could be applied today. just another example of history repeating itself.

http://kitswv.com

[BartsDaddy 7]

Quote

Quote

You might want to research what you are allowed to own here in America. As your examples are allowed. You just have to jump thru a few more hoops to do it.

In other words, you concede that the second amendment DOES have limits, and that regulation of arms available to the average citizen has and does occur. Good job. You are starting to get the point.

The point being that regulation of weapons and ammunition is already part of the existing body of law. Those regulations can, and should be revisited from time to time as technology and society evolve.

How's about a bit of that "original intent" bullshit added to the mix?

A reasonable argument can be made that the "origianl intent" of the second amendment was to ensure that the average citizen, with his muzzle loading, single shot flintlock soothbore would be able to hang on to it as part of a well regulated militia. The "original intent" of 2nd Amendment certainly didn't cover rifled barrels, bullet cartridges, semiautomatic and automatic firing mechanisms, etc. Those would be illegal by "original intent" and would have to be covered under a seperate body of law.

"Original Intent" sure is fun, isn't it?

In other words, you concede your original post has alot of missinformation in it. Good your starting to see the truth.
So I guess you feel freedom of speech does not aply to electronic communication since it was not invented at the time the first amendmant was written. Interesting but wrong

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So in other words, you concede ....
So I guess you feel ....

Putting words in someone's mouth so that you can then argue against those "words" is about the most amateur and ineffective method of debate - about at the same level as "Oh, yeah? Well... shut up."

So I guess you think wife-beating is OK. Real nice.