Gun control debate (merged)

#1,802
#1,802
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Who said there would be no protection by law? Anarchy means no rulers, it doesn't mean no rules.

Who would own the roads and public utilities? Whoever wanted to offer those services on the market. Yes, it would be a pay or subscription service.

What prevents price fixing? The free market. The price of a good will be dictated by what price the consumer will pay.

Protections services? I'd suggest you finish the video for a more complete understanding of private law.

Who gets the current military hardware? Whoever buys it. Nuclear football? Whoever buys it.

What would be the penalty for not paying for services? You'd have to allow for a certain amount of free riders. That's just reality. What you won't have is a coercive government there to point guns at you and force you to either pay, or be jailed, or even killed for not complying. I could even imagine a protection agency offering their services free of charge to the poor just as a show of good will.

As far as bad products or even bad protection agencies. There would be a market for people like consumer reports to provide unbiased ratings on goods and services. I know you didn't go there, just thought I'd throw that out there.

As I've said before, I'm not imagining a utopia without problems. Of course there will be problems. I trust a free people using voluntary interactions and agreements to figure out the solution. Instead of the violence and coercion of the state.
Click to expand...


This would quickly devolve into only the strong survive and you would have absolute rulers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,807
#1,807
TNsnyper20 said:
So tomorrow is when he plans to sign his EO?
Click to expand...

It's not an executive order from the president of the United States of America. This is another order from Obama that just does what he wants without oversight from Congress because he's thinks he's Idi Amin.
 
#1,810
#1,810
Grand Vol said:
Oh, then I'm your Huckleberry since DTH and I disagree on things along this line...

Now where to start?



Please bore me. I was a cop and I know all about the 4th Amendment. And your reasonableness standard you are trying to apply to the 2nd Amendment doesn't really work. It's an apples to squirrels comparison. But go ahead and try to make the comparison.


The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has also applied a reasonableness standard to a number of other Constitutional Amendments.


Is there a portion of the 2nd Amendment that says the Right is restricted? I remember reading "shall not be infringed." Nothing about how much one could own.

"Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.

The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does | Mother Jones

Then you failed basic reading comprehension. Hell, 2nd Grade English.

Damn, then I need to give back the law degree hanging on my wall.

Ever hear of a comma? And how it separates portions of a sentence from each other? And how specifically the militia portion happens to be separated from the right to bear arms portion?

See response above. "But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical."

Under your argument, and the argument of most gun enthusiasts, the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment is just completely ignored. The framers of the Constitution included that language for a reason, as so aptly pointed out in the article linked and cited above.

Actually if you strictly interpret it, the militia argument gets really weak.

Define militia for me please.

"a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers"

"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency"


Can you provide stats on said gun nuts and how often they open fire on schools, parks, public places, etc? Or are you going to find out how most of those shootings were undertaken with illegal firearms?

Wrong -

More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally
More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally - NBC News

How They Got Their Guns
"The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

I'll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...

Please find my responses in bold above. I know you didn't think I would respond, but I am tired of letting the right-wingers try to run over everyone else when it comes to guns. Now I'll hang up and listen and really can't wait to hear your argument against the last 2 articles I posted, which completely contradict your argument that "most of those shootings were undertaken with illegal firearms". And please do better than the standard right-wing response that those articles are just the product of the "liberal media bias" and provide actual facts to counter the articles and support your position that most mass shootings are by use of illegal firearms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,811
#1,811
bnhunt said:
Please find my responses in bold above. I know you didn't think I would respond, but I am tired of letting the right-wingers try to run over everyone else when it comes to guns. Now I'll hang up and listen and really can't wait to hear your argument against the last 2 articles I posted, which completely contradict your argument that "most of those shootings were undertaken with illegal firearms". And please do better than the standard right-wing response that those articles are just the product of the "liberal media bias" and provide actual facts to counter the articles and support your position that most mass shootings are by use of illegal firearms.
Click to expand...

You should give back that law degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#1,814
#1,814
Here's my question: if all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, then why isn't the 2nd amendment?
 
#1,817
#1,817
bnhunt said:
Please find my responses in bold above. I know you didn't think I would respond, but I am tired of letting the right-wingers try to run over everyone else when it comes to guns. Now I'll hang up and listen and really can't wait to hear your argument against the last 2 articles I posted, which completely contradict your argument that "most of those shootings were undertaken with illegal firearms". And please do better than the standard right-wing response that those articles are just the product of the "liberal media bias" and provide actual facts to counter the articles and support your position that most mass shootings are by use of illegal firearms.
Click to expand...

Well, honestly I really didn't care if you replied, but you did, so I suppose I'll need to retort...

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has also applied a reasonableness standard to a number of other Constitutional Amendments.
Click to expand...

As they also did during Heller as the Second Amendment could have "reasonable" restrictions placed on it. Yet found the DC handgun ban as well as the McDonald decision. It specifically stated an entire class of weapons could not be banned. And applied the individual right to own firearms across the board with McDonald.

Now, if the Founding Fathers were so concerned with a collective right of the militia to be armed, why is it the other Amendments specifically have the same verbiage as the Second? "The right of the people." if it was their intent to only have militia armed, why in fact did they even include the term "right of the people" when they framed it?

You should give your law degree back.

Is there a portion of the 2nd Amendment that says the Right is restricted? I remember reading "shall not be infringed." Nothing about how much one could own.

"Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.
Click to expand...

lol at you using Mother Jones as well as a known anti-gunner as a source. Just straight lolololol

But I'll address what he said to say this. His definition of the 2A is in direct contravention to the SCOTUS. Just like LG likes to say "they got it wrong" well, until you or he sit on the SCOTUS and get to decide such things, the interpretation is how the government will have to abide by.

And you ignored the original question asked. Where does it say the Right restricts how much I can own?

Define militia for me please.

"a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers"

"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency"
Click to expand...

You ignored the other definition:

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Don't leave things out of your answers, it won't help since I'm not a simpleton that won't back check your answers.

Can you provide stats on said gun nuts and how often they open fire on schools, parks, public places, etc? Or are you going to find out how most of those shootings were undertaken with illegal firearms?

Wrong -

More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally
More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally - NBC News

How They Got Their Guns
"The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...guns.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear on my original question. First off, the concept and definition of "mass shooting" tends to skew the data significantly as it's any time three or more are involved. Which also includes a lot of gang activity that involves three or more. With the exception of notable incidents such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc, most "mass shootings" never make the news. And I'd dare say in a great many of those cases the weapons are illegal and/or the people could not have obtained them. Even pointing to San Bernandino as they did (Mother Jones at it again) said the firearms were purchased legally, but that's a stretch. Those firearms were purchased out of state by a completely different person and did NOT have the require "California Compliance" items on them. And neither of the two purchased them with a background check. Same goes for Sandy Hook as that little turd murdered his mother, stole the firearms and did that hateful deed. You're talking third hand ownership here and what could potentially be a straw purchase.

So that 80% is a lie. And more to the point, how often do gun nuts, those that collect and keep firearms, go on rampages in public?

So sad you replied. You should have let sleeping dogs lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,818
#1,818
bnhunt said:
I would have never brought it up except he essentially asked if I knew how to read.
Click to expand...

You're a lawyer and by proxy, know how to read.

Unless you're from Florida and went to the UF Law School. In that case, you didn't color outside the lines in order to obtain your degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,821
#1,821
In trying to think of a way to describe what happened to bhunt here. But quite frankly I'm not sure anything applies.

I would say similar to the beating we delivered to northwestern... Except that actually scored.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top