The "Its our constitutional right" argument.....

[partygirluk]

is really stupid. e.g. an N.R.A member advocating his case "because it is enshrined in the 2nd amendment".

The American constitution is one of the very greatest documents ever. However, it was written 230 years ago. The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

Fortunately, the founding fathers had the foresight and self-awareness to know that society changes, and thus they provided a method for amending the constitution. Indeed, many of the greatest aspects of America are provided in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights).

The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith & Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

Note: This was not originally intended to focus on one issue. My generic point also encompasses issues such as abortion and Capital punishment.

[BCPVP]

I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand, seeing as your own country has all but banned them.

The original Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights at all! But after sending it to be ratified, a Bill of Rights was demanded. The second amendment was included with all the other original amendments in the Bill of Rights. Therefor, it is no less a civil right than speech is. You can take back your freedom of speech with your right to bear arms, but I'd like to see someone take back their right to bear arms with their freedom of speech! I have no idea where you got the idea that the 2nd amendment wasn't part of the original bill of rights, but I suspect it has something to do with not doing any study of American history.

And I must know how you segue from there shouldn't be a 2nd amendment to abortion and capital punishment. I suspect illicit drugs are involved with your post...

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith & Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, this is accurate. But, the constitution was ratified with the expection of many who signed that a Bill of Rights would quickly be made law. It was a major issue in the first Cognress.

A short historical summary (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html)

[CORed]

The Constitution certainly carries legal weight unless ammended, as the courts have the power to rulle laws unconstitutional and therefore void I would agree that the fact that a right is granted by the Constitution doesn't in and of itself mean that it is desirable. I would, however, argue that the right to keep and bear arms granted by the 2nd ammendment is a very important one and I oppose efforts to take that right away. I would also argue that any effort to ban personal ownership of firearms. without repealing the 2nd ammendment would be unconstitutional (some would disagree with me based on the introductory phrase about a "well regulated militia".

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
(some would disagree with me based on the introductory phrase about a "well regulated militia".

[/ QUOTE ]

...that 'some' happens to include EVERY SINGLE supreme court ruling on the subject.

the word of the constitution is THE LAW, however, 'should' doesn't even deserve consideration when it comes to constitutional rights, unless you are proposing ammending it. the 'constitutional right to bear ars' is one of the biggest fallicies in the public's understanding of that document.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
is really stupid. e.g. an N.R.A member advocating his case "because it is enshrined in the 2nd amendment".

The American constitution is one of the very greatest documents ever. However, it was written 230 years ago. The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

Fortunately, the founding fathers had the foresight and self-awareness to know that society changes, and thus they provided a method for amending the constitution. Indeed, many of the greatest aspects of America are provided in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights).

The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith & Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

Note: This was not originally intended to focus on one issue. My generic point also encompasses issues such as abortion and Capital punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not hardcore pro-gun by any means, but your argument makes no sense. The fact that the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution is irrelevant. Amendments must have the same force of law as the original Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it mandated a process for adopting Amendments that would become part of that supreme law. If we decide to just ignore the 2nd Amendment, or any part of the constitution, without repealing it by the constitutionally dictated means, then me might as well ignore the whole document.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the Federalist Papers. I know it says nothing directly about the second amendment (or any of the "bill of rights" amdendments), but note how the word "militia" is used in that document. At the time the second ammendment was enacted, the word "milititia" did not refer just to state controlled troops (what later became know as the "National Guard", but to armed citizens in general. I realize that the opinion of Supreme Court justices is what really matters legally, but, IMO, the preservation of the right of individual citezens to keep arms was exactly what the second ammendment intended, and the phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended as an explanation, not a limitation on the right of an individual citezen to keep and bear arms.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is really stupid. e.g. an N.R.A member advocating his case "because it is enshrined in the 2nd amendment".

The American constitution is one of the very greatest documents ever. However, it was written 230 years ago. The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

Fortunately, the founding fathers had the foresight and self-awareness to know that society changes, and thus they provided a method for amending the constitution. Indeed, many of the greatest aspects of America are provided in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights).

The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith & Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

Note: This was not originally intended to focus on one issue. My generic point also encompasses issues such as abortion and Capital punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not hardcore pro-gun by any means, but your argument makes no sense. The fact that the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution is irrelevant. Amendments must have the same force of law as the original Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it mandated a process for adopting Amendments that would become part of that supreme law. If we decide to just ignore the 2nd Amendment, or any part of the constitution, without repealing it by the constitutionally dictated means, then me might as well ignore the whole document.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I did not make my point clear:

Person A does not deny that Person B has the legal right to own a firearm. Person A argues that the law should be changed so that B does not have the right to bear arms. Person B says that this is stupid because the constitution gives him the right to bear arms. This final argument from person B is stupid.

[bholdr]

i understand your argument, and i think there's SOME validity to it, but you'll forgive me if i take the interepretation of the supreme court over yours or mine.

[slickpoppa]

Ok, I see what you mean now

[partygirluk]

Did you actually read my post?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it mandated a process for adopting Amendments that would become part of that supreme law. If we decide to just ignore the 2nd Amendment, or any part of the constitution, without repealing it by the constitutionally dictated means, then me might as well ignore the whole document.

[/ QUOTE ]

The constitution is the supreme law in theory only. In fact, we have a super legislature that determines what the supreme law is, and that can change over time as the super legislature changes. The super legislature will use terminology that refers to the constitution to create the legal fiction that that is what they are following, but don't be fooled, they are making it up to please their personal beliefs.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The super legislature will use terminology that refers to the constitution to create the legal fiction that that is what they are following, but don't be fooled, they are making it up to please their personal beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

...as opposed to you making it up to please your own personal beliefs. lacking an objective measurment (which would require a time machine, i suppose) we just won't know the full intent of the founders, and must rely on our judgement as they relied on theirs.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it mandated a process for adopting Amendments that would become part of that supreme law. If we decide to just ignore the 2nd Amendment, or any part of the constitution, without repealing it by the constitutionally dictated means, then me might as well ignore the whole document.

[/ QUOTE ]

The constitution is the supreme law in theory only. In fact, we have a super legislature that determines what the supreme law is, and that can change over time as the super legislature changes. The super legislature will use terminology that refers to the constitution to create the legal fiction that that is what they are following, but don't be fooled, they are making it up to please their personal beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if they pass a Bill that conflicts with the constitution, then the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court.....

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
i understand your argument, and i think there's SOME validity to it, but you'll forgive me if i take the interepretation of the supreme court over yours or mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

See how effective the super legislature is in having people believe what they decide is somehow based on a "constitution" instead of their own beliefs. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The super legislature will use terminology that refers to the constitution to create the legal fiction that that is what they are following, but don't be fooled, they are making it up to please their personal beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


...as opposed to you making it up to please your own personal beliefs. lacking an objective measurment (which would require a time machine, i suppose) we just won't know the full intent of the founders, and must rely on our judgement as they relied on theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with the founders. The super legislature decides what it wants and then retro-fits their decision to make it look like this might be what the founders wanted.

You are arguing theory, I am merely stating the current situation we find ourselves in.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
But if they pass a Bill that conflicts with the constitution, then the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The supreme court is the super legislature. Sorry for the confusion, but the parliamentary supremacy that exists in the UK is very different from the US system.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with the founders. The super legislature decides what it wants and then retro-fits their decision to make it look like this might be what the founders wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Like when they appointed George W. Bush president in 2000.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they pass a Bill that conflicts with the constitution, then the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The supreme court is the super legislature. Sorry for the confusion, but the parliamentary supremacy that exists in the UK is very different from the US system.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I said.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. Amendments are no less part of the Constitution than any of the original clauses.

[MMMMMM]

partygirl,

The Amendments to the Constitution count as part of the Constitution, too.

Therefore whenever anyone cites an Amendment as basis for something, they are citing the Constitution as well. The Amendments are PART OF the Constitution. They weren't so initially, granted; but once they became law, they became part of the Constitution. So anyone citing the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right to bear arms is indeed citing the Constitution--as well as citing The Bill Of Rights--as well as citing the 2nd Amendment. None of those are separate from the Constitution.

[andyfox]

Indeed, without the original ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would not have been ratified, as the lack of a bill of rights was one of the main arguments used by the anti-Federalists opposing ratification.

[natedogg]

"It's our constitutional right" is a fine argument for asserting one's constitutional rights.

natedogg

[natedogg]

She's British so cut her some slack.

natedogg

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
partygirl,

The Amendments to the Constitution count as part of the Constitution, too.

Therefore whenever anyone cites an Amendment as basis for something, they are citing the Constitution as well. The Amendments are PART OF the Constitution. They weren't so initially, granted; but once they became law, they became part of the Constitution. So anyone citing the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right to bear arms is indeed citing the Constitution--as well as citing The Bill Of Rights--as well as citing the 2nd Amendment. None of those are separate from the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know all this. When did I say otherwise?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I know all this. When did I say otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the following paragraph, it seems that you probably did not "know all that". You essentially argued that basing something on what an Amendment says is somehow different than basing it on what the Constitution says.

[ QUOTE ]
The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith & Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Can" and "should" are indeed two different words, but why are you putting that in the same paragraph as above? It seems that that would be an entirely different argument altogether.

By the way, the 2nd Amendment does not give "states" the right to keep and bear arms; rather it gives "the people" the right to keep and bear arms.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]

Based on the following paragraph, it seems that you probably did not "know all that". You essentially argued that basing something on what an Amendment says is somehow different than basing it on what the Constitution says.

[ QUOTE ]
The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith & Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I phrased that badly. What I meant was: The right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment. This shows how the constitution can be amended over time (even though it is almost part of the original constitution). Which makes the pro gun lobby's argument (that they should retain their right because the constitution is somehow sacred) fallacious.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they pass a Bill that conflicts with the constitution, then the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The supreme court is the super legislature. Sorry for the confusion, but the parliamentary supremacy that exists in the UK is very different from the US system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is more subtle than this. Whilst S.C. judges serve for life, Congress can increase the total number of justices. Originally it was 6 I think (strange, since having an odd number makes much more sense). So Congress could flood the S.C. with justices favorable to their perspective. This almost happen (I think) under F.D.R when he was having trouble getting his New Deal through. They came up with some last minute deal that kept the current number of justices ("The Switch in Time that Saved Nine). Could be a bit hazy on some of the details, almost 4 years since I studied American Politics.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I phrased that badly. What I meant was: The right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment. This shows how the constitution can be amended over time (even though it is almost part of the original constitution). Which makes the pro gun lobby's argument (that they should retain their right because the constitution is somehow sacred) fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification.

So, if I understand you correctly now, you are saying that due to the fact that the Constitution can be amended, it is fallacious to claim a right based on the Constitution in its present form--even if the Constitution in its present form guarantees that right?

I can't agree with that, because the Constitution is the very basis of our entire legal system in this country.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I phrased that badly. What I meant was: The right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment. This shows how the constitution can be amended over time (even though it is almost part of the original constitution). Which makes the pro gun lobby's argument (that they should retain their right because the constitution is somehow sacred) fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification.

So, if I understand you correctly now, you are saying that due to the fact that the Constitution can be amended, it is fallacious to claim a right based on the Constitution in its present form--even if the Constitution in its present form guarantees that right?

I can't agree with that, because the Constitution is the very basis of our entire legal system in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There are many rights clearly set out in the constitutions. Under any reasonable interpretation, Americans have the right to own a gun. But this does not mean that they should have the right to bear arms.

My point is that this argument is a tautology. Breaked down, they are saying

"I should have the right to own a gun, because I do have the right to own a gun".

Which is similar to someone saying 200 years ago,

"Niggers shouldn't have the right to vote, because they don't have the right to vote".

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]


I think it is more subtle than this. Whilst S.C. judges serve for life, Congress can increase the total number of justices. Originally it was 6 I think (strange, since having an odd number makes much more sense). So Congress could flood the S.C. with justices favorable to their perspective. This almost happen (I think) under F.D.R when he was having trouble getting his New Deal through. They came up with some last minute deal that kept the current number of justices ("The Switch in Time that Saved Nine). Could be a bit hazy on some of the details, almost 4 years since I studied American Politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the congress and president can affect the membership of the super legislature does not diminish its power largely because it would take significant consensus to do so, which is rarely present. Even with strong party majorities in congress, FDR failed to do so as you noted.

The last time it was successful was in the 1860s. The size of the court was increased from 9 to 10 under Lincoln, and then reduced to 8 under Johnson to deny him the ability to nominate anyone, and finally raised back to 9 under Grant (the last time the court size has changed).

[Broken Glass Can]

As long as the court is acting as a super legislature, I think we should increase its size.

Only a bi-partisan plan could ever get passed, maybe a plan to increase the court by 1 during each of 4 successive Presidential terms (final size = 13), allowing the eventual new seat nominees to follow the election returns over time just as current replacements do. Anyone like this idea?

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is more subtle than this. Whilst S.C. judges serve for life, Congress can increase the total number of justices. Originally it was 6 I think (strange, since having an odd number makes much more sense). So Congress could flood the S.C. with justices favorable to their perspective. This almost happen (I think) under F.D.R when he was having trouble getting his New Deal through. They came up with some last minute deal that kept the current number of justices ("The Switch in Time that Saved Nine). Could be a bit hazy on some of the details, almost 4 years since I studied American Politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
FDR's court packing plan would never have passed because even members of his own party were against it. The Switch that you are referring to was not a deal. Justice Roberts, one of the 5 SC justices that had consistently held New Deal legislation unconstitutional, simply changed his mind, thus giving supporters of the New Deal legislation the majority in the court.

[Voltorb]

Its an interesting point. Reminds me of the "because I told you so" argument used by parents as the final word.

The 2nd amendment is just one of many good reasons for citizen gun ownership. Besides, guns are fun!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Read the Federalist Papers. I know it says nothing directly about the second amendment (or any of the "bill of rights" amdendments), but note how the word "militia" is used in that document. At the time the second ammendment was enacted, the word "milititia" did not refer just to state controlled troops (what later became know as the "National Guard", but to armed citizens in general. I realize that the opinion of Supreme Court justices is what really matters legally, but, IMO, the preservation of the right of individual citezens to keep arms was exactly what the second ammendment intended, and the phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended as an explanation, not a limitation on the right of an individual citezen to keep and bear arms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. Please do not think I am making a pro-skinhead militia comment, but the 'militia' envisioned by the founders is precisely as this poster stated, a militia of the people and not one controlled by an individual state, specifically to give the people the ability to fight against their own government should it degenerate into a dictatorship, as well as a foreign invasion or more likely a domestic criminal threat (current urban crime and Chicago prohibition-era mob crime come to mind).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
specifically to give the people the ability to fight against their own government should it degenerate into a dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the purpose of the amendment, shouldn't we allow private citizens to possess the types of weapons that can actually fight back against our government/military? Missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand, seeing as your own country has all but banned them.
... I'd like to see someone take back their right to bear arms with their freedom of speech...."

[/ QUOTE ]
Americans are so ignorant of their own history that asking a Briton to explain it probably gives you a better than random result here.

Americans did not obtain freedom of speech when the first amendment was ratified. Until 1867, for example, the U.S. constitution allowed every state to enact laws abridging freedom of speech, and it took another 58 years before the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the 14th amendment had changed things. Free speech has always been on shaky grounds in the U.S.; Eugene Debs got 20 years for giving a speech in a park criticizing the WWI draft, communists were prosecuted as late as the 1960's. Current doctrine governing seditious language dates only to 1969 and has been fiercely criticized by right-wing jurists, including those appointed to high courts by GOP Presidents, ever since.

Needless to say, the victory of free speech in the U.S. had absolutely nothing to do with citizens "bearing arms," really or potentially, against the U.S. government.

[Voltorb]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

specifically to give the people the ability to fight against their own government should it degenerate into a dictatorship


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If this is the purpose of the amendment, shouldn't we allow private citizens to possess the types of weapons that can actually fight back against our government/military? Missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck Yeah!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
specifically to give the people the ability to fight against their own government should it degenerate into a dictatorship

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the purpose of the amendment, shouldn't we allow private citizens to possess the types of weapons that can actually fight back against our government/military? Missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they can afford it, absolutely.

[elwoodblues]

Any lines drawn? Nukes?

[benfranklin]

The Bill of Rights differ in intent and philosophy from any other amendments. The Founders did not think that they were granting any rights with these amendments, and they did not intend the amendments to grant any rights or licenses. Many people at the time were unhappy with the vagueness of the Constitution regarding certain issues, including many of those addressed by the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was added as a specific enumeration of basic human rights that were beyond the legal authority of the government. They did not grant legal rights, they listed natural human rights that the government could not take away. This was the intent of these amendments, and they were adopted to ease the concerns that these human rights were not specified in the original Constitution. Violations of these human rights were among the causes for the founding of the country and for the American Revolution. Those concerned wanted to make clear that those violations would never happen again in this country.

To look at the 2nd Amendment in particular, the language does not say that the government is granting a right, it says that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This says that the people have such a right, and the the government cannot take that right away from them.

Similarly, the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This language clearly does not grant any rights, it says that the people have these rights and that the government cannot take them away.

Therefore, I disagree with the original poster's argument that the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, and that therefore an amendment to the Constitution could rescind that right. You could just as well argue that a Constitutional Amendment could eliminate the right to free speech. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional, because the Constitution says that these rights are beyond governmental authority.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you tell me exactly which part of the U.S. Constitution states this?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You could just as well argue that a Constitutional Amendment could eliminate the right to free speech. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional, because the Constitution says that these rights are beyond governmental authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? How can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

specifically to give the people the ability to fight against their own government should it degenerate into a dictatorship


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If this is the purpose of the amendment, shouldn't we allow private citizens to possess the types of weapons that can actually fight back against our government/military? Missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If they can afford it, absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is ludicrous on so many levels.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]



What? How can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution puts certain things, like religion, beyond the scope of itself and of the government. It says that this is out of bounds, the government cannot touch it. If that were not true, there could be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice of non-Christian religion, or outlawing talk radio, or outlawing blogs critical of the government. The Constitution says no, these are human rights, and they are above the authority of government and above the authority of the Constitution. They have higher authority, human nature, than the authority of the Constitution.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]

Therefore, I disagree with the original poster's argument that the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, and that therefore an amendment to the Constitution could rescind that right. You could just as well argue that a Constitutional Amendment could eliminate the right to free speech. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional, because the Constitution says that these rights are beyond governmental authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Amendment 21: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed".

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you tell me exactly which part of the U.S. Constitution states this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Article 1, Section 2, sentence 3.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



What? How can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution puts certain things, like religion, beyond the scope of itself and of the government. It says that this is out of bounds, the government cannot touch it. If that were not true, there could be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice of non-Christian religion, or outlawing talk radio, or outlawing blogs critical of the government. The Constitution says no, these are human rights, and they are above the authority of government and above the authority of the Constitution. They have higher authority, human nature, than the authority of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and the constitution can be amended to say otherwise.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the Constitution puts certain things, like religion, beyond the scope of itself and of the government. It says that this is out of bounds, the government cannot touch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the Constitution can be amended so that those things aren't beyond its scope.

[ QUOTE ]
If that were not true, there could be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice of non-Christian religion, or outlawing talk radio, or outlawing blogs critical of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct, the Constitution could be amended to do those things.

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution says no, these are human rights, and they are above the authority of government and above the authority of the Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

If you used the phrase "current Constitution" instead, you might understand why you are incorrect in your assertions here. The current constitution says you can't abridge free speech. If you AMENDED the current constitution you could make it say that government can regulate free speech. What do you think the proposed "flag burning amendment" would do?

[thatpfunk]

uh.... pwned.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

specifically to give the people the ability to fight against their own government should it degenerate into a dictatorship


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If this is the purpose of the amendment, shouldn't we allow private citizens to possess the types of weapons that can actually fight back against our government/military? Missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If they can afford it, absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is ludicrous on so many levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, IMO if you draw the conclusion from Amdnt. 2 that citizens have the right to own a gun, then I think it follows that they can own the aforementioned items.

[thatpfunk]

Which doesn't make it feasible.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Therefore, I disagree with the original poster's argument that the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, and that therefore an amendment to the Constitution could rescind that right. You could just as well argue that a Constitutional Amendment could eliminate the right to free speech. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional, because the Constitution says that these rights are beyond governmental authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Amendment 21: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed".

[/ QUOTE ]

You either did not understand what I said or you are trying to deliberately confuse the issue. I did not say that no Amendment could be repealed. I said that the Bill of Rights is an enumeration of human rights that the founders deemed above and beyond governmental authority. The language of these Amendments says that they are rights. The language of the 18th Amendment does not make any reference to rights.

Specifically, your "I disagree" comment comes right after a quote from me saying that the Constitution cannot be amended to prohibit free speech. Do you disagree which that premise? Is it your position that the Constitution could be amended to repeal the 1st Amendment?

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Which doesn't make it feasible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amendment number two was clearly written with a very different kind of society in mind.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it your position that the Constitution could be amended to repeal the 1st Amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitively, yes.

[Voltorb]

Certainly wouldn't want everyone wealthy enough running around with nukes. Grenades, rocket propelled grenade launchers, fully automatic machine guns of any caliber... these would all be essential to any self-respecting militia. I think I would probably draw the line at a tank. The idea is to give the general population enough weaponry so that any government would seriously think twice before declaring martial law, seizing property, and forcing people into camps. The kind of crap that we like to believe our government isn't capable of. Of course, you would need to go through serious background checks to obtain such weaponry, as well as owning a very large safe to store them in. Extremely heavy penalties would be imposed for selling these weapons, as well as other penalties for even losing them or allowing them to get stolen. Those who decide to own such weapons would willingly assume massive responsibility for the safety of the society in which they live.

[adios]

The article you sight:

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

From your original post:

The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

Where does it say "negros are slaves" as you assert in your original post?

[elwoodblues]

Ben, if the Constitution were Amended to repeal the First Amendment, then it would be read as if it didn't exist. Below is article 5 to the Constitution (emphasis added) dealing with Amendments. Worthy of note:

The only substantive restriction on Amendments is limiting the number of representatives given to a state

[ QUOTE ]
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; <font color="red"> ONLY SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION </font> and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

[/ QUOTE ]

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
The article you sight:

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

From your original post:

The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

Where does it say "negros are slaves" as you assert in your original post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically you are correct. But it ackowledges and implicity approves of slavery, which AFAIK, all negros were.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it your position that the Constitution could be amended to repeal the 1st Amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitively, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have provided an argument for my position that you are wrong. My argument is summarized at the website cited by Dynasty on the first page of this thread:

[ QUOTE ]


The Bill of Rights, which is recognized as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, lists many rights of individuals. It is important to note here why a bill of rights was not originally included in the Constitution. Most of the Framers felt that any power to infringe upon individual rights would not be legal under the Constitution, since the power to infringe was not granted to the United States by the Constitution. But the arguments of the people who supported a bill of rights eventually prevailed, and guarantees were added to the Constitution within a few years. It is also important to note that the Bill of Rights does not grant people the listed rights. The Bill of Rights simply guarantees that the government will not infringe upon those rights. It is assumed that the rights pre-exist. It is an important distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have provided no argument to support your opinion.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Technically you are correct. But it ackowledges and implicity approves of slavery, which AFAIK, all negros were.

[/ QUOTE ]

No free negros in the U.S&gt; when the Constitution was written? Absurd.

[partygirluk]

The constitution gives citizens these rights. Article V states that the constitution can be amended. New amendment ---&gt; new constitution. You are wrong.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly wouldn't want everyone wealthy enough running around with nukes. Grenades, rocket propelled grenade launchers, fully automatic machine guns of any caliber... these would all be essential to any self-respecting militia. I think I would probably draw the line at a tank. The idea is to give the general population enough weaponry so that any government would seriously think twice before declaring martial law, seizing property, and forcing people into camps. The kind of crap that we like to believe our government isn't capable of. Of course, you would need to go through serious background checks to obtain such weaponry, as well as owning a very large safe to store them in. Extremely heavy penalties would be imposed for selling these weapons, as well as other penalties for even losing them or allowing them to get stolen. Those who decide to own such weapons would willingly assume massive responsibility for the safety of the society in which they live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand how [censored] nuts people are? I don't know if anyone remembers this but about 6 years ago in San Diego a nutjob stole a tank from an armory. The police couldn't do a damn thing. He rode around for over an hour just running over cars and wrecking stuff. Finally the tank got caught on a weird median and the cops were able to jump on top of the still moving tank, open it up, and shoot. They ended up killing the guy. He caused a shitload of damage without any artillery also, this was just running stuff over.

And you want it to be made legal for people to own tanks? You are supposed to have to get a background check to get a gun, but I can go buy one today, no questions asked. Why would it be any different? And think about enforcing this... Who the hell wants to be a police officer facing serious weaponary? Not too mention the incredible amount of money it would take to arm police officers for all these new threats.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I have provided an argument for my position that you are wrong. My argument is summarized at the website cited by Dynasty on the first page of this thread: [ QUOTE ]
The Bill of Rights, which is recognized as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, lists many rights of individuals. It is important to note here why a bill of rights was not originally included in the Constitution. Most of the Framers felt that any power to infringe upon individual rights would not be legal under the Constitution, since the power to infringe was not granted to the United States by the Constitution. But the arguments of the people who supported a bill of rights eventually prevailed, and guarantees were added to the Constitution within a few years. It is also important to note that the Bill of Rights does not grant people the listed rights. The Bill of Rights simply guarantees that the government will not infringe upon those rights. It is assumed that the rights pre-exist. It is an important distinction.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And the Constitution can be Amended so that the Bill of Rights no longer guarantees that the government will not upon those rights.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Technically you are correct. But it ackowledges and implicity approves of slavery, which AFAIK, all negros were.

[/ QUOTE ]

No free negros in the U.S&gt; when the Constitution was written? Absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when the constitution was signed there were negros who were free to own land, vote, go to the same schools as whites and get the same jobs?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The constitution gives citizens these rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite...the constitution limits the power of the government to take away these pre-existing rights. For purposes of this argument, however, it doesn't matter.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

And the Constitution can be Amended so that the Bill of Rights no longer guarantees that the government will not upon those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree for the reasons stated. See you in court.

[partygirluk]

Depends. Amendment six gives rights. Generally, you are correct, it prohibits the gvt from infringing on these rights.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree for the reasons stated. See you in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I will be filing for Rule 11 sanctions against you for making a frivolous claim and will win them without any problem. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
So when the constitution was signed there were negros who were free to own land, vote, go to the same schools as whites and get the same jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The northern states at the time of the U.S. Constitutional Convention were the ones that pushed that slaves should be counted less.

Slavery in America (http://www.probe.org/docs/slavery.html)

[CORed]

Rifles are adequate, if push comes to shove. They can't stay in those tanks and plains forever (although robot tanks could render this statement incorrect).

[CORed]

There was a guy in Granby Colorado who did something similar just last year. He, in effect, converted a bulldozer int a home-made tank (put concrete and steel around the operater's seat), and knocked down a bunch of buildings. They couldn't stop him until he got stuck and overheated the engine. He actually survived, and is awaiting trial, I believe.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Slavery in America

[/ QUOTE ]

How about an unbiased link? I don't bother reading ones that may (or may not) have an agenda. I am not saying yours does, but I do not want to waste my time.

[CORed]

I support the right of individuals to own guns, primarily for self-defense, but also as a last line of defense against dictatorship. However, I think as a practical matter there have to be limits. When the second ammendmant was passed, the ultimate weapon was a muzzle loading cannon. Personal weapons were muzzle-loading flintlock rifles, smoothbores, pistols etc. These were basicly single shot weapons. It took quite a bit of time to load one. It would be tough to commit a mass murder with these, unless you had a lot of accomplices or managed to stash a big box full of loaded weapons somewhere. Once you shot somebody, everybody else could tackle you before you could reload. If you were one on one against somebody armed with a knife, you'd better make your first shot count, because, even from maximum rifle range (about 100 yards for flintlock rifles), he could close the distance and stab you before you could reload. Even something like a 9mm semi-auto handgun is a much more formidable weapon. Where do I think we should draw the line? I think semi-auto weapons that you can carry are fully adequate for self-defense. Full auto firearms, rocket launchers, etc. is overkill. Also, an effective gurilla resistance can be mounted with such weapons, even though they won't win in a direct confrontation with tanks, etc.

[CORed]

I don't believe that anything in the Constitution stated that negroes were slaves. Some provisions of the Constitution protected the slave trade, but very carefully avoided use of the word "slave". Slaves ("all other persons") were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representatives. "Indians not taxed" were not counted for the purpose of apportioning representatives. The infamous Dred Scott decision by the supreme court, ruled that slaves were property and that the slave Dred Scott did not gain his freedom by virtue of the fact that his owner had moved to a jurisdiction where slavery was illegal.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Technically you are correct. But it ackowledges and implicity approves of slavery, which AFAIK, all negros were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, not all negroes were slaves. Slave owners would sometimes free slaves as a reward for loyal service, or becuase they had moral qualms about slavery. Free negroes did not generally have the right to vote prior to the end of the civil war, but there may have been exceptions to that.

[Voltorb]

No,no. You misunderstood. The line cuts off before the tank. I guess I wasn't exactly clear on that one. Realizing how nasty tanks are, I clearly think that anyone being able to own a tank would not be good, nor necessary.

[CORed]

I'm not disagreeing. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote. You can never underestimate the ingenuity of a nut with a grievance. The guy in Granby obviously couldn't buy a tank, and probably wouldn't be able to get a stolen one all the way from Fort Carson to Granby, so he built his own.

[jaxmike]

um, no, thats not what it says thank you much. you are totally and completely wrong about what you "" quoted.

Here is what it says...
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

you are assuming that there were no free blacks in the nation at that time, which is wrong. in fact, the word slave does not appear in the constitution until the 13th amendment where it is outlawed.

[Voltorb]

You guys are probably right. I get kind of carried away with the whole right to bear arms thing. I guess I just trust people too much. But wouldn't it be fun, instead of going to the range to shoot of a couple of 9mm rounds, you could bring your RPG's and go real nuts! Imagine hunting with an M-16. Oh my God! Its coming right for us... rat-a-tat-tat.

[jaxmike]

actually, adios is right. the northern states didnt want to have slaves counted as citizens because that would give the south a much larger population, thus say in the government, than they would have had sans slaves.

there were free blacks in the nation when the constitution was written. they might not have had all the rights of a "white" man, but not all were slaves.

[CORed]

You can buy an AR-15, which is basicly an M-16 with full auto mode disabled. There are also lots of semi-auto hunting rifles available. As I recall, at one time somebody was even selling an AK-47 with a wooden stock and a smaller magazine as a hunting rifle. Other than magazine capacity and the lack of a full auto mode, there really isn't that much difference between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a military rifle that isn't cosmetic.

[jaxmike]

either way, why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own any type of firearm he wants?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not understand how [censored] nuts people are?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if anyone remembers this but about 6 years ago in San Diego a nutjob stole a tank from an armory. The police couldn't do a damn thing. He rode around for over an hour just running over cars and wrecking stuff. Finally the tank got caught on a weird median and the cops were able to jump on top of the still moving tank, open it up, and shoot. They ended up killing the guy. He caused a shitload of damage without any artillery also, this was just running stuff over.

[/ QUOTE ]
So...this guy stole a tank. Could he have afforded one? Don't think so. That's my point. If someone can afford said weapons and has the ability to store them privately, who are you to say he shouldn't be able to? Tell me you're not one of those people who assumes that because a person has a weapon, they're going to use that weapon for evil purposes? If so, I suppose it wouldn't matter much if I told you I own a couple rifles that have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

[ QUOTE ]
You are supposed to have to get a background check to get a gun, but I can go buy one today, no questions asked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh huh... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif. Try and be able to buy a handgun without waiting 3 days. Even worse is applying for a full-automatic. Those take months, I believe.

[ QUOTE ]
Not too mention the incredible amount of money it would take to arm police officers for all these new threats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do the police have to treat civilians as criminals that must be countered? That's not the police's job. On a side note, if you want less crime, just get your state to liberalize their concealed carry permits. It's been shown to lower crime. That way, your big brother police don't have to spend money trying to keep up with law-abiding citizens.

[thatpfunk]

I wasnt disagreeing with adios, i just choose to read articles written by people with no affiliation. a topic such as slavery easily could have directed me to an encyclopedia style site. this was not, so i chose not to read it.

[BCPVP]

Pretty close-minded thinking, I must say.

[jaxmike]

understood. there is one problem though, you assume that there are articles written by people who have no affiliation. the vast majority of the time, people write articles with an agenda. im not saying this is wrong, just that its the way things are.

[MMMMMM]

I suspect that "unfree persons" likely referred also to indentured servants (typically, those who had contracted their service for a period of years in exchange for passage overseas to the New World--and maybe even bound apprentices to a master of a trade?)

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
So...this guy stole a tank. Could he have afforded one? Don't think so. That's my point. If someone can afford said weapons and has the ability to store them privately, who are you to say he shouldn't be able to? Tell me you're not one of those people who assumes that because a person has a weapon, they're going to use that weapon for evil purposes? If so, I suppose it wouldn't matter much if I told you I own a couple rifles that have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know how much money he had? Is sanity now judged by your bank account? If you honestly think that it is logistically realistic to allow private citizens to purchase any weapons they want then I doubt your ability to think conceptually rather than idealistically/ideologically. I didn't say anything about anyone hurting others because they own a weapon, please don't put words in my mouth. What does Ted Kennedy have to do with this thread? I see absolutely no correlation.

[ QUOTE ]
Uh huh... . Try and be able to buy a handgun without waiting 3 days. Even worse is applying for a full-automatic. Those take months, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I needed a gun urgently, I could get one within 24 hours. I never said legally. If you want to call BS, thats fine, that is an issue that cannot be determined on the internet so I don't want to waste time with it. I am unimportant however. Individuals are able to get guns illegally. Just as would be true if more weapons were available, the black market availability would increase.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do the police have to treat civilians as criminals that must be countered? That's not the police's job.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many things I do not like about the police, however, I for one would not want their job. You are making a very broad statement that has nothing to do with what I wrote. If there was a large increase of the availability of more deadly weapons the police force would need more training, equipment, etc, in case of an emergency.

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, if you want less crime, just get your state to liberalize their concealed carry permits. It's been shown to lower crime. That way, your big brother police don't have to spend money trying to keep up with law-abiding citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the suggestion, however I would much rather give up whatever possesion is being stolen than pull a gun on someone. I would have no intention of using it as killing someone over something as a trivial as a car does not agree with me. And I do not understand what you mean in stating "your big brother police." They are mine just as much as they are yours as we both pay taxes. Your tone sounds condescending, for what reason, I am unsure. My original post was merely an amusing anecdote.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty close-minded thinking, I must say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think of it as pretty efficient. On the internet it is extremely easy to find a website biased towards a specific side of an argument. I choose to read articles which are as un-biased as possible. I am curious as to how this is close-minded?

[jaxmike]

people here have called me a neo-con, not quite sure what that is really, i would call myself a constitutionalist more than anything else. either way... i like to read the most liberal and conservative stuff i can find. i like to read the extremes as well as the stuff in the middle. it just so happens that that loser moore and the moveon schmucks in combination with the NYT, WP, and the network news stations give me just about all the radical left wing stuff i need to read and watch. i have to search a little harder for the radical right wing stuff. AC.com and some other people along her lines i read. from all my watching of the networks, i must say that i truely believe that FOX NEWS does the best job of representing all sides of a story as evenly as possible. for instance, Hannity and Colmes right and left, same show.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
understood. there is one problem though, you assume that there are articles written by people who have no affiliation. the vast majority of the time, people write articles with an agenda. im not saying this is wrong, just that its the way things are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and agree Jax. I can explain a little more. The issue we were discussing was slavery. When I opened up the link I found that it was a religious sponsored site. Had we been discussing religion in anyway I would have been happy to read it. I think religion is one of the most interesting topics there is.

However, our topic was slavery, and while yes, most writing is biased in some way, I would expect others to react the same way had I posted link to an article on a atheistic website. A topic such as slavery is fairly common and more suited towards a research or encyclopedia specific site I believe.

FWIW, I also took both yours adios' word for it, as it seem very logical, and IMO not extremely relevant to the discussion.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
people here have called me a neo-con, not quite sure what that is really, i would call myself a constitutionalist more than anything else. either way... i like to read the most liberal and conservative stuff i can find. i like to read the extremes as well as the stuff in the middle. it just so happens that that loser moore and the moveon schmucks in combination with the NYT, WP, and the network news stations give me just about all the radical left wing stuff i need to read and watch. i have to search a little harder for the radical right wing stuff. AC.com and some other people along her lines i read. from all my watching of the networks, i must say that i truely believe that FOX NEWS does the best job of representing all sides of a story as evenly as possible. for instance, Hannity and Colmes right and left, same show.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are different, what can I say? I see Fox as being incredibly conservative and the NY times as pretty fair. Both have their moments. (BTW did you see Jon Stewart on Crossfire? I thought it was great piece of tv, but never heard any other peoples viewpoints)

As far as hearing different sides, I agree completely as I love trying to soak up information, but the post I was referring to (where the idea to label black slaves 3/5 of a person) wasn't opinion, just facts, so I felt a single reliable source would be best.

[nef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is really stupid. e.g. an N.R.A member advocating his case "because it is enshrined in the 2nd amendment".

The American constitution is one of the very greatest documents ever. However, it was written 230 years ago. The constitution stated that negros were slaves, and were each worth 3/5 of a vote to their owners.

Fortunately, the founding fathers had the foresight and self-awareness to know that society changes, and thus they provided a method for amending the constitution. Indeed, many of the greatest aspects of America are provided in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights).

The original constitution did not give American states the right to bear arms. It was amended so that they did. So the pro-gun lobby's argument that they should keep their Smith &amp; Westons on the basis that the constitution says so, is fallacious. Can and should are two different words.

Note: This was not originally intended to focus on one issue. My generic point also encompasses issues such as abortion and Capital punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not hardcore pro-gun by any means, but your argument makes no sense. The fact that the Bill of Rights was not part of the original Constitution is irrelevant. Amendments must have the same force of law as the original Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it mandated a process for adopting Amendments that would become part of that supreme law. If we decide to just ignore the 2nd Amendment, or any part of the constitution, without repealing it by the constitutionally dictated means, then me might as well ignore the whole document.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I did not make my point clear:

Person A does not deny that Person B has the legal right to own a firearm. Person A argues that the law should be changed so that B does not have the right to bear arms. Person B says that this is stupid because the constitution gives him the right to bear arms. This final argument from person B is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The NRA's general argument comes from the fact that there is often legislation in bill form or laws passed that infringe on the 2nd amendment rights, and they are arguing that these laws that are passed, or the laws that might be passed are unconstitutional. I have never heard of any legitimate proposal for constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. Therefore the argument against the legislation affecting guns as unconstitutional is valid.

If there were an amendment proposed to repeal the 2nd amendment then youre A and B argument comes into play.

[MMMMMM]

...upon looking back at the text: it includes, under "free persons," those bound to service for a period of years...so that seems to exclude indentured servants and bound apprentices. Which of course, leaves slaves...and anyone else?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know how much money he had? Is sanity now judged by your bank account?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is how I know:
"In May 1995, the San Diego area was witness to one of the weirdest criminal activities. An unemployed plumber named Shawn Nelson stole a tank from a National Guard compound and drove it wildly through the streets of the suburb of Clairemont, running down light posts, fire hydrants and parked vehicles (but, thankfully, not any people).
...Unfortunately, Nelson's numerous demons eventually overpowered him. Physically and financially bankrupt , facing a foreclosure on his mortgage and unable to pay for his various addictions , Nelson planned to make one final statement against a world which he felt betrayed him. Recalling his Army training and remembering the National Guard had a compound in his neighborhood, Nelson stole the tank and went on his destructive joyride."
source (http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=3169)
Happy now?

[ QUOTE ]
If you honestly think that it is logistically realistic to allow private citizens to purchase any weapons they want then I doubt your ability to think conceptually rather than idealistically/ideologically.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why shouldn't it be logistically realistic? Private citizens already own massive things like private jets and luxury yachts. I don't think "logistically" was the word you meant to use.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say anything about anyone hurting others because they own a weapon, please don't put words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet you seem disturbed that private citizens might have a chance to own such weapons. Why, if not because you assume they'll hurt others with them?

[ QUOTE ]
What does Ted Kennedy have to do with this thread? I see absolutely no correlation.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a joke that seems lost on you. Google Ted Kennedy+Chappaquiddick and you'll see what I was referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
If I needed a gun urgently, I could get one within 24 hours. I never said legally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I'm talking legally. You'll notice that gun control laws have not eliminated criminals from using guns. Please leave illegal activity out of a discussion about legalizing military weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
If there was a large increase of the availability of more deadly weapons the police force would need more training, equipment, etc, in case of an emergency.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but the government would have an increase in revenue from the sales of these guns.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the suggestion, however I would much rather give up whatever possesion is being stolen than pull a gun on someone. I would have no intention of using it as killing someone over something as a trivial as a car does not agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't shoot someone over theft of a car either. I would however, if I had such a permit, if my life was in danger. If you want to lay down your life for a criminal, fine by me. But I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
And I do not understand what you mean in stating "your big brother police." They are mine just as much as they are yours as we both pay taxes. Your tone sounds condescending, for what reason, I am unsure. My original post was merely an amusing anecdote.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also have the utmost respect for the police. And it is because I respect them so much that I don't want to see them grow into a force that infringes on our liberties. It's also notable that with more concealed carry laws, we wouldn't need to rely so heavily on the police. Do you think that about 800,000 police officers can protect everyone in a nation of almost 300 million? I don't. That's why we should have the right to CCW permits. Read some of John Lott's work for more info.

[lastchance]

I'd say that a guy with a tank could kill about 1,000 people before being stopped. Personally, that scares me. Hell, the amount of people killed in 9/11 was 4,000.

People do use their guns for illegal purposes. Not everyone does, but some people do. Imagine what would happen if every gang fight became a fight between tanks and not guns? Imagine if every mass murder had a guy using a tank? And perhaps the biggest problem would be destruction of property. A guy with a tank could just shut down the city for a day, and create damage equivilent of a riot. Imagine the destruction of property that would occur.

In this day and age, an effective militia consists of automatic rifles and RPG's. (also, homemade bombs) Essentially, the stuff the insurgents in Iraq have right now.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine what would happen if every gang fight became a fight between tanks and not guns? Imagine if every mass murder had a guy using a tank? And perhaps the biggest problem would be destruction of property. A guy with a tank could just shut down the city for a day, and create damage equivilent of a riot. Imagine the destruction of property that would occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's pretty much what happenee in Lebanon in the '80's. No imagination required. It wasn't pretty.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that a guy with a tank could kill about 1,000 people before being stopped. Personally, that scares me. Hell, the amount of people killed in 9/11 was 4,000.

People do use their guns for illegal purposes. Not everyone does, but some people do. Imagine what would happen if every gang fight became a fight between tanks and not guns? Imagine if every mass murder had a guy using a tank? And perhaps the biggest problem would be destruction of property. A guy with a tank could just shut down the city for a day, and create damage equivilent of a riot. Imagine the destruction of property that would occur.

In this day and age, an effective militia consists of automatic rifles and RPG's. (also, homemade bombs) Essentially, the stuff the insurgents in Iraq have right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it you assume that these will be so widespread that ordinary gangs and thugs would be able to afford these weapons? An M1A1 tank costs about $4 million each !
No, not everyone who has a weapon uses it legally, but you want to bet on whether legal weapon owners commit more crimes than illegal weapons owners?
Stop assuming every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be able to afford these types of weapons.

[lastchance]

What happens when that price decreases? (And it will). The more power one gets, the more people one can kill. Eventually....

It doesn't matter whether legal gun owners kill more than illegal gun owners. It just matters how many legal gun owners kill.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens when that price decreases? (And it will). The more power one gets, the more people one can kill. Eventually....

[/ QUOTE ]
Decreases by what? A million or two? That's still a staggering amount for one weapon. That's not including ammunition. Or gas. So that price isn't going to decrease by so much that every crook and gangmember can afford them.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter whether legal gun owners kill more than illegal gun owners. It just matters how many legal gun owners kill.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should also add the qualifier "illegally" on the end of that last sentence. If a legal gun owner uses his gun in self-defense, legally, that shouldn't be counted against legal gun owners. As a quick example I found for you:
" In Florida as a whole, 315,000 ]i] (Concealed Carry) [/i] permits had been issued by December 31, 1995. Only five had been revoked because the permit holder committed a violent crime with a gun." Emphasis added. source (http://www.policyreview.org/jul96/labs.html)
So that boils down to 0.0001587% of the CCW permit holders in Florida that committed crimes with a gun. Pretty small chance, huh?

[lastchance]

I assume concealed carry permits are harder to get than regular permits? Mind bringing up the numbers for those?

And yes, it's illegally.

Also, you should add guns stolen from legal permit owners. Theft of something like a tank should be a pretty big concern.

And I also wouldn't want to create a market for tank-sellers. Guns are produced much more easily in the US than they are in say, Europe. Once a company starts producing tanks for public use, very easy for those tanks to end up in the wrong hands.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume concealed carry permits are harder to get than regular permits? Mind bringing up the numbers for those?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on where we're talking about. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes not. I'm having trouble finding exact numbers but as an example:
[ QUOTE ]
In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian).

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'd be willing to bet money that the number of legally owned guns used in crimes are far inferior to the number of illegally owned guns used in crimes.

But your fear of massive misuse of these weapons is totally expected and mostly misguided. In regards to CCW permits, it's often hyped before such legislation is passed that there will be a drastic increase in shootings and the city will turn into the O.K. Corral. But after about a year, the murder rate is either stable or decreasing and everyone realizes that their fears were unfounded.

[ QUOTE ]
And I also wouldn't want to create a market for tank-sellers. Guns are produced much more easily in the US than they are in say, Europe. Once a company starts producing tanks for public use, very easy for those tanks to end up in the wrong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not try stopping the market for cars? Cars kill far more people than guns do, let alone tanks! And how is a tank going to easily "fall into the wrong hands"?
1) The number of tank owners would be very very small
2) Someone trying to steal a tank would have to know how to use it. And assume they did steal one. Tanks are notorious gas-guzzlers. A person wouldn't make it that far with a tank. You don't think a tank rolling into the local Mobile station would attract a little attention?
I think you're assuming that criminals will have easy access to these weapons and will be trained in their use. I'd say those assumptions are for the most part erroneous.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not try stopping the market for cars? Cars kill far more people than guns do, let alone tanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because cars perform a useful purpose to society. Guns may be fun, but without guns, i doubt our economy would suffer at all.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Happy now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The question you answered was obviously a hypothetical. The outcome in this specific case is completely pointless. Does ones bank accout reflect their sanity? Please answer that question and apply.

[ QUOTE ]
Why shouldn't it be logistically realistic? Private citizens already own massive things like private jets and luxury yachts. I don't think "logistically" was the word you meant to use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, logistically is exactly what I meant. Please stop attempting to put words in my mouth, I have awarded you this same common courtesy. There are many flaws in your analogy. I will expand, but only briefly.

A jet or yacht is much different than a fighter plane or an aircraft carrier. You seem to believe that "if they have the money, they can buy it." Can someone buy a nuclear powered submarine? Can someone buy a nuclear weapon? If not,please explain because this is an obvious contradiction. If someone legally purchases an extremely powerful military vehicle and uses such vehicle to attack another sovereign nation, who is responsible? What about countries without an active military? Does it become the United States' job to protect them? The countries who sold such a machine? You are writing idealogical drivel which has absolutely no place in the world in which we both reside.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you seem disturbed that private citizens might have a chance to own such weapons. Why, if not because you assume they'll hurt others with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

No such assumption was made. Why is it so difficult for you to stop interpreting my writing for your own benefit? There are people that use weapons to hurt other people. If you don't believe that then you are obviously not rational. Why should it be legal for someone to buy a weapon that is able to kill others on a massive scale? It is too dangerous for the majority of society as my above response detailed.

[ QUOTE ]
It was a joke that seems lost on you. Google Ted Kennedy+Chappaquiddick and you'll see what I was referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what you were referring to. Once againv how is it relevant to this thread?

[ QUOTE ]
Well I'm talking legally. You'll notice that gun control laws have not eliminated criminals from using guns. Please leave illegal activity out of a discussion about legalizing military weapons.


[/ QUOTE ]
The availbility of illegal military weapons will grow if your proposal was a reality. Weapons get stolen and then sold to people who are unable to purchase them legally. If you can not accept that this is a relevant side effect than I am not interested in continuing this debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but the government would have an increase in revenue from the sales of these guns.


[/ QUOTE ]
The logisitics are much, much, bigger. See above. Who becomes responsible if a sovereign nation with no active military is attacked? Should we just let the private citizen attack? This is just one small example. There are many possibilities, and all must be accounted for.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't shoot someone over theft of a car either. I would however, if I had such a permit, if my life was in danger. If you want to lay down your life for a criminal, fine by me. But I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please look at the number of gun accident deaths vs violent crime defense use. An unbiased report would be a good place to start. Also, more specifically, I have never been in a situation in which my life has been seriously endangered and a gun would solve the problem. Neither have my parents. Neither has anyone in my family actually. Neither have any of my friends. Neither have any of their family either. I do not live my life in fear of a criminal attempting to kill me for no reason. Apparently you do.

[ QUOTE ]
I also have the utmost respect for the police. And it is because I respect them so much that I don't want to see them grow into a force that infringes on our liberties. It's also notable that with more concealed carry laws, we wouldn't need to rely so heavily on the police. Do you think that about 800,000 police officers can protect everyone in a nation of almost 300 million? I don't. That's why we should have the right to CCW permits. Read some of John Lott's work for more info.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you mock them stating "Your big brother police" and then claim you respect them. Please choose a side. The idea that CCW decrease crime is completely unfounded, and I think a fairly uninteresting argument. We can both find statistics proving our respective sides.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not try stopping the market for cars? Cars kill far more people than guns do, let alone tanks! And how is a tank going to easily "fall into the wrong hands"?
1) The number of tank owners would be very very small
2) Someone trying to steal a tank would have to know how to use it. And assume they did steal one. Tanks are notorious gas-guzzlers. A person wouldn't make it that far with a tank. You don't think a tank rolling into the local Mobile station would attract a little attention?
I think you're assuming that criminals will have easy access to these weapons and will be trained in their use. I'd say those assumptions are for the most part erroneous.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you seriously just pick and choose arguments due to convenience? Please refer to the San Diego story which you so dutifully looked up. This was done without artillery. What would have been the consequences had the tank had working weapons? It is scary to fathom.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not try stopping the market for cars? Cars kill far more people than guns do, let alone tanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because cars perform a useful purpose to society. Guns may be fun, but without guns, i doubt our economy would suffer at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
As do guns. Without guns:
1) The deer population would explode due to the lack of hunting
2) Because the deer population would skyrocket, many would starve from lack of food
3) Because the deer population would be starving and overpopulated, they will wander more and more into residential areas
4) Because more deer are within residential areas, more people will die or be injured in collisions with these deer
5) More property will be damaged due to deer, such as damage to landscape
Clearly damaged property and increases in deaths and injuries would hurt the economies of many states. And that's just the hunting aspect. Then there's defensive gun use which occurs an estimated 2 million times per year. Without those uses, there may be more injuries and deaths. That's another blow to economies around the country.
And then there's the gun industry itself. Removing guns forces all those people out of jobs. And then there's competion shooting; more economic damage.

So it's silly to say that guns don't serve a useful purpose in our society. Clearly they do.

[andyfox]

"Slaves ("all other persons") were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of apportioning representatives."

Without the 3/5 clause, Thomas Jefferson doesn't become president; Adams beats him. Very good book by Garry Wills called "Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power is highly recommended if you're interested in the issue.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Not at all. The question you answered was obviously a hypothetical. The outcome in this specific case is completely pointless. Does ones bank accout reflect their sanity? Please answer that question and apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like someone's a little ticked that I'm right... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif If the outcome was pointless, why use the example in the first place?
On the question of whether ones bank account reflects their sanity, I'd say it does far more often than not. Besides, there are checks in place to keep mentally disturbed people from buying guns and there's no reason to assume checks wouldn't exist for more advanced weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone legally purchases an extremely powerful military vehicle and uses such vehicle to attack another sovereign nation, who is responsible?

[/ QUOTE ]
Say I buy an old WWII M1 Garand and go over to (insert random country) and start shooting? Is it my fault or the U.S.'s fault? Stupid question. What weapon I use doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]
What about countries without an active military? Does it become the United States' job to protect them? The countries who sold such a machine?

[/ QUOTE ]
See above explanation

[ QUOTE ]
You are writing idealogical drivel which has absolutely no place in the world in which we both reside.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, that's a powerful debate tactic. If you were confident that you were winning this debate, you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsense...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet you seem disturbed that private citizens might have a chance to own such weapons. Why, if not because you assume they'll hurt others with them?

[/ QUOTE ]
No such assumption was made.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does one say this with a straight face and then say this: [ QUOTE ]
There are people that use weapons to hurt other people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you're assuming people will use these weapons improperly. You're previous comment about attacking other countries and San Diego tank incident prove that. Of course people can misuse weapons to hurt others. But people can misuse thousands of things that may hurt others yet they are also legal. Cars and alcohol come to mind (but not necessarily combined). Should those be illegal too? Like I said, more people die from auto accidents than die from being shot.

[ QUOTE ]
Why should it be legal for someone to buy a weapon that is able to kill others on a massive scale?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should it be legal for anyone to own any weapon?

[ QUOTE ]
It is too dangerous for the majority of society as my above response detailed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Because you assume there are people who would use these weapons criminally? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what you were referring to. Once againv how is it relevant to this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you don't get the joke, so nevermind.

[ QUOTE ]
The availbility of illegal military weapons will grow if your proposal was a reality. Weapons get stolen and then sold to people who are unable to purchase them legally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but who would better be able to protect their property, a very wealthy person or a relatively average wealthy person? Such weapons are simply not going to be affordable to most people who are probably most at risk of having something stolen. You also seem to make the assumption that criminals who do happen to steal these items would know how to use them.

[ QUOTE ]
Who becomes responsible if a sovereign nation with no active military is attacked?

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly martians are responsible. I answered this question already!

[ QUOTE ]
Should we just let the private citizen attack?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, and I've never suggested that we should. Again, if I personally go and shoot a bunch of people in Bolivia, is I my fault I shot them or is it the U.S.'s fault I shot them?

[ QUOTE ]
Please look at the number of gun accident deaths vs violent crime defense use. An unbiased report would be a good place to start.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet money that there are more defensive gun uses than there are accidents. I don't have the time to go Easter egg hunting for reports that you think are unbiased. I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject. Apparently, you haven't. For the record, defensive gun use 10 years ago was about 2.5 million in that year alone . Accidental deaths, according to soyouwanna.com, number 1,500 per year. Hmmm, 2.5 million vs 1,500.... that's a tough decision....

[ QUOTE ]
Also, more specifically, I have never been in a situation in which my life has been seriously endangered and a gun would solve the problem. Neither have my parents. Neither has anyone in my family actually. Neither have any of my friends. Neither have any of their family either. I do not live my life in fear of a criminal attempting to kill me for no reason. Apparently you do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you, your family, friends, and their family have never been in a such a situation. But not everyone lives in such a situation, so why do you feel the need to deprive them of their right to defend themselves just because you aren't in danger?
And no, I've also never been in a situation where a gun would have saved my life. More assumptions on your part... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Its funny that you mock them stating "Your big brother police" and then claim you respect them. Please choose a side.

[/ QUOTE ]
I respect the police. I was refering to the type of police state you'd see imposed on the rest of us. Hence "your".

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that CCW decrease crime is completely unfounded, and I think a fairly uninteresting argument. We can both find statistics proving our respective sides.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because it appears that you don't know much about the topic, or you'd know such things like how many defensive gun uses there are per year vs accidental deaths. How much have you read by John Lott? David Kopel? Gary Kleck? For some reason I doubt it amounts to much if any. What you might find against CCW's would probably be from the Brady Campaign or Handgun, Inc, but I doubt you'll find many large professional studies done of gun control policy.
If you'd like to debate the merits of CCW, just start up a thread. I'm game.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously just pick and choose arguments due to convenience?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Please refer to the San Diego story which you so dutifully looked up.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the story who's background information is "pointless"? That story? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
What would have been the consequences had the tank had working weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to know how one mentally unstable, meth-addicted, plumber who couldn't drive the tank in the right direction would know how to do the work of 4 people in order to drive and fire.

I would hope you noticed that the police, untrained in stopping a tank, managed to subdue the man anyway.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
On the question of whether ones bank account reflects their sanity, I'd say it does far more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]
More often than not is not a reliable enough number to risk other peoples lives.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, there are checks in place to keep mentally disturbed people from buying guns and there's no reason to assume checks wouldn't exist for more advanced weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
And for those whos mental condition erodes after they purchase such a weapon? And are we to assume this is a perfect system? That is obviously impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
Say I buy an old WWII M1 Garand and go over to (insert random country) and start shooting? Is it my fault or the U.S.'s fault? Stupid question. What weapon I use doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are unable to comprehend things on a global scale. If X purchases a nuclear weapon and uses it, who is responsible? If X purchases an aircraft carrier and a multitude of bombers, tanks, and other military vehicles whos responsibility is it to protect sovereign nations without an active military? You forgot to answer this question.

[ QUOTE ]
Say I buy an old WWII M1 Garand and go over to (insert random country) and start shooting? Is it my fault or the U.S.'s fault? Stupid question. What weapon I use doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
So who stops this attack?

[ QUOTE ]
See above explanation

[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting...

[ QUOTE ]
You are writing idealogical drivel which has absolutely no place in the world in which we both reside.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow, that's a powerful debate tactic. If you were confident that you were winning this debate, you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsense...

[/ QUOTE ]
You are arguing for the sake of theory about applications that are impossible to apply in the reality in which we exist. When you continue to do so, or respond in ways which disregard basic logic, your writing becomes drivel, or "senseless talk." My adjectives may be colorful, but that does not give you the right to disregard their meaning.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you're assuming people will use these weapons improperly. You're previous comment about attacking other countries and San Diego tank incident prove that. Of course people can misuse weapons to hurt others. But people can misuse thousands of things that may hurt others yet they are also legal. Cars and alcohol come to mind (but not necessarily combined). Should those be illegal too? Like I said, more people die from auto accidents than die from being shot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fact: People use weapons to injure and kill other people on purpose. Now please look up car accident. Once again, a fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because you assume there are people who would use these weapons criminally?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is a fact: People use weapons to commit crimes, including those which physically harm others, up to, and including, death. Your statement is merely twisting words a... fallacy!

[ QUOTE ]

Clearly you don't get the joke, so nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "joke" was abundantly clear. It was also not funny. I don't find mocking the dead particularly humorous.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but who would better be able to protect their property, a very wealthy person or a relatively average wealthy person? Such weapons are simply not going to be affordable to most people who are probably most at risk of having something stolen. You also seem to make the assumption that criminals who do happen to steal these items would know how to use them.


[/ QUOTE ]
You do not get to decide what "may" or "may not" happen. These are assumptions that you made. The burden is on you to prove that people will not be hurt. That is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
No, and I've never suggested that we should. Again, if I personally go and shoot a bunch of people in Bolivia, is I my fault I shot them or is it the U.S.'s fault I shot them?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is this quote about apples and oranges...

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly martians are responsible. I answered this question already!

[/ QUOTE ]
Just in case you forget to answer it again the first 3 times, who will protect countries that are unable to protect themselves? Comparing a single murder to an attack with sophisticated military weaponary is a fallacy. Don't forget about nuclear weapons either.

[ QUOTE ]
And no, I've also never been in a situation where a gun would have saved my life. More assumptions on your part...

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, more words in my mouth... I said you live in fear, whether or not it is realistic, I did not say.

[ QUOTE ]
I respect the police. I was refering to the type of police state you'd see imposed on the rest of us. Hence "your".

[/ QUOTE ]

And one last time, you make an amazing assumption, which I find very rude and disrespectful to the police that you seem to appreciate so much. It is also quite pretentious.

[ QUOTE ]
That's because it appears that you don't know much about the topic, or you'd know such things like how many defensive gun uses there are per year vs accidental deaths. How much have you read by John Lott? David Kopel? Gary Kleck? For some reason I doubt it amounts to much if any. What you might find against CCW's would probably be from the Brady Campaign or Handgun, Inc, but I doubt you'll find many large professional studies done of gun control policy.
If you'd like to debate the merits of CCW, just start up a thread. I'm game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohhh... I get it. You get to cite who you want, but if I cite who I want, its wrong, ok.

If you respond with a fallacy you will simply become ignored. It is a waste of time to keep correcting your mistakes. A class in logic would do wonders for you.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean the story who's background information is "pointless"? That story?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are a piece of work, seriously. His financial status was not important in determining his insanity. That was made very clear.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to know how one mentally unstable, meth-addicted, plumber who couldn't drive the tank in the right direction would know how to do the work of 4 people in order to drive and fire.

I would hope you noticed that the police, untrained in stopping a tank, managed to subdue the man anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, ya I know noticed, it was in my neighborhood. And he went on for an hour. It wasn't until *his* mistake in getting stuck that they were able to kill him. Big difference. They were unable to subdue him.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Without the 3/5 clause, Thomas Jefferson doesn't become president;

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that Jefferson wouldn't have become president if slaves weren't counted at all or if slaves were counted as whole people? I'm assuming it's the former, as I think Jefferson got more votes from the South than from the North. Remember, the 3/5 clause was a compromise. The southern states wanted slaves counted, the nortern states didn't want them counted at all. How they arrived at 3/5 instead of 1/2, I'm not sure.

[adios]

How is it biased? Actually the article is quite factual. Go look it up for yourself for crying out loud.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
More often than not is not a reliable enough number to risk other peoples lives.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that with the exception of inheritance, almost all extremely wealthy (and you would need to be to afford these things) people are quite sane. Look at poker. You think the truly successful, wealthy players are almost always a) sane or b ) insane?

[ QUOTE ]
And for those whos mental condition erodes after they purchase such a weapon? And are we to assume this is a perfect system? That is obviously impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I guess if you're going to hold this system to unreasonably high standards, then we're done talking.

[ QUOTE ]
Since you are unable to comprehend things on a global scale. If X purchases a nuclear weapon and uses it, who is responsible? If X purchases an aircraft carrier and a multitude of bombers, tanks, and other military vehicles whos responsibility is it to protect sovereign nations without an active military? You forgot to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, apparently you don't get such ideas as personal responsibility. If X uses a weapon, any weapon against someone else it is X's fault. It is not Y's fault. Who would be responsible for protecting a sovreign nation w/o a military if a peson used conventional weapons? Why does changing the size of the weapon shift the responsibility of its use? Was it Australia's fault that the U.S. used the atomic bomb on Japan?

[ QUOTE ]
So who stops this attack?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who would stop any other sort of attack?

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: People use weapons to injure and kill other people on purpose. Now please look up car accident. Once again, a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. We both agree that weapons can hurt other people. That doesn't mean we must automatically assume that they will be used in such a way.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a fact: People use weapons to commit crimes, including those which physically harm others, up to, and including, death. Your statement is merely twisting words a... fallacy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is a fact: People use cars to commit crimes, including those which physically harm others, up to, and including, death. I'm not twisting any words.

[ QUOTE ]
The "joke" was abundantly clear. It was also not funny. I don't find mocking the dead particularly humorous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I'd say you don't have a very good sense of humor. I won't make the mistake of using humor while talking with you again...

[ QUOTE ]
You do not get to decide what "may" or "may not" happen. These are assumptions that you made. The burden is on you to prove that people will not be hurt. That is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I smell a double standard. I do not get to decide what "may" or "may not" happen, but you apparently do by assuming that people will use such weapons for only one purpose: killing. I try not to make such assumptions. Since the constitutions garauntees us the right to bear arms, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. And since we've never been able to own such weapons, you have no idea what would happen if we were allowed to purchase such things.

[ QUOTE ]
There is this quote about apples and oranges...

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. I'm simply filling in the blanks of your vague examples to show you that I am responsible for my own actions and mine alone. No one else is responsible for my actions but me. Get it?

[ QUOTE ]
Just in case you forget to answer it again the first 3 times, who will protect countries that are unable to protect themselves? Comparing a single murder to an attack with sophisticated military weaponary is a fallacy. Don't forget about nuclear weapons either.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, broken record, I didn't forget. And one last time I'll answer this question. But this is the last time so actually read my answer instead of just asking the question again.
It is the responsibility of sovreign nations to protect themselves. If someone attacks a country, no matter who or with what, it is the attacker who is responsible. Increasing the size of the weapons does not shift responsbility from one person to another.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, more words in my mouth... I said you live in fear, whether or not it is realistic, I did not say.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are a little too picky about this stuff. Nonetheless, you are still wrong. I do not live in fear. You're making assumptions about me even though you've never met me. So who's really putting words in who's mouth? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
And one last time, you make an amazing assumption, which I find very rude and disrespectful to the police that you seem to appreciate so much. It is also quite pretentious.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your making a lot of mountains out of molehills. One last time, I respect our police. And because I respect them, I would not want to see their powers used perversely. If you don't want to own any weapons, fine. Don't. Just don't start telling me or others what they can and can't do with their money. That's arrogance.

[ QUOTE ]
Ohhh... I get it. You get to cite who you want, but if I cite who I want, its wrong, ok.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong once again. You don't get it. I was giving you a heads up that most of your anti-CCW is not going to have many large-scale professionally done studies about the benefits of CCW. If you want to cite the Brady Campaign's rhetoric, fine. So, are you game for this other debate? Are you accepting my challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
If you respond with a fallacy you will simply become ignored. It is a waste of time to keep correcting your mistakes. A class in logic would do wonders for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not correcting anything. You're making more and more mistakes with each post! If you want to play holier-than-thou fine. I'll accept your pettiness as a victory. Otherwise stop being so pompous.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a piece of work, seriously. His financial status was not important in determining his insanity. That was made very clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong! The fact that he was broke from being a meth addict does have an impact on his sanity. Think about people who commit suicide. Many of those people have had very difficult financial troubles which may lead them to commit suicide. Knowing nothing else, who would you bet would first commit suicide, 1) a very wealthy person 2) an average wealthy person or 3) a flat broke meth addict ?

[jaxmike]

to look good, that way they can at least say "we thought of them as MORE than half a person"

/end sarcasm

[CORed]

Could be, or maybe there was some other clause that the northerners really wanted and said to the southerners, "Give us this clause, and we'll throw in an extra tenth of a person for the slaves."

[BCPVP]

I suppose one could argue that NBC weapons could probably be excluded from such a program because they have no recreational value that doesn't involve killing or massive environmental damage. I could do donuts in my backyard with a tank and not hurt anyone or anything, but I can't light off a tactical nuclear weapon without doing damage to somebody else's property either by direct damage or through the nuclear fallout. Is that more acceptable? If a clearly recreational use of such a weapon can be established, as well as being able to use the weapon without hurting anyone or anyone else's property, I think it should be legal. Hopefully that gets us over this stumbling block.

[thatpfunk]

well now you're drawing a line, when you previously said there was none. who are you to make this judgement?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I suggest that without the 2nd Amendment, all the others are nothing more than window dressing. If we as citizens allow the government to deny us the means of self-defense, how can we protect our rights to free speech, assembly, religion, etc.?

I for one would not want to live where the only ones armed were the government and the thugs.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I suggest that without the 2nd Amendment, all the others are nothing more than window dressing. If we as citizens allow the government to deny us the means of self-defense, how can we protect our rights to free speech, assembly, religion, etc.?

[/ QUOTE ]

A physically unsupportable document or treaty eventually becomes worthless.

People can agree on "rights" all they want, but if some have guns and others don't, that ultimately settles any disputes over who gets what "rights".

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
well now you're drawing a line, when you previously said there was none. who are you to make this judgement?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I ever said there wasn't a line. But after thinking about the issue some more, I felt that it's clear that there are no recreational uses for real WMDs that don't involve hurting other people and other peoples' property. Therefore, there's no reason to sell them to private citizens.

I think it's ironic of you asking who I am to make such judgements, when that is basically what you've been doing this whole debate. You(and people who think like you) want to make judgements about what weapons people can or can't own. Too rich... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[juanez]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I felt that it's clear that there are no recreational uses for real WMDs that don't involve hurting other people and other peoples' property. Therefore, there's no reason to sell them to private citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

If the point of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from a government with too much power, then recreational value is irrelevant.

[lastchance]

And I would postulate that tanks are useless for the express purpose of protecting yourself against a government with too much power. You can't try to outtank a government in the open field.

A sucessful revolution in this day and age is predicated upon guerilla warfare, and tanks are useless for this purpose.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I felt that it's clear that there are no recreational uses for real WMDs that don't involve hurting other people and other peoples' property. Therefore, there's no reason to sell them to private citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

If the point of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from a government with too much power, then recreational value is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should protection be the only reason for the 2nd Amendment?
But that was the question I was wrestling with before deciding what I did. It would have to be phased in, though, if such weapons were to become available. I don't think most people are rational enough to see the purposes of the 2nd amendment (w/ a great example being thatpfunk)

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that without the 2nd Amendment, all the others are nothing more than window dressing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sensible people in this country should try to shut down this ridiculous argument once and for all. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence and dangerously stupid.

1. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment as containing a right of people to possess, own, carry or otherwise "bear" arms or any other type of weapon. In the first place, the Second Amendment has never even been applied as any restraint on the power of the states; it has yet to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment, and therefore applies only to the federal government. Second, every single federal court of appeals that has addressed the issue has ruled that the amendment forbids Congress from disarming the "well-regulated" militias of the various states. When the NRA mounts a legal challenge to gun control legislation, it rarely even cites the Second Amendment. Even the few legal scholars who contend that the Second Amendment ought to be so interpreted acknowledge that any right to own weapons "is subject to reasonable regulation consistent with its purposes" (Nelson Polsby), such as restrictions on time, place and manner imposed on other constitutional rights. Accordingly, there is and never will be any "right" to bear arms so absolute that it could deter any action by the state.

2. The argument is particularly absurd given the state's monopoly on the use of military force and its control over public infrastructure. The notion that citizens with pistols but not seapower, airpower, training, food, water or electricity against any modern military, much less America's, is too cartoonish to merit comment. The ability of citizens to mobilize against the state, although waning and endangered, remains powerful, but has nothing to do with firearms.

3. There is no historical evidence to show that any right acknowledged under the constitution was obtained or saved from attack by the government as a result of citizens bearing arms against the government, not one.

4. There is an extremely high correlation between those demanding protection of gun rights and those that seek to limit other constitutional protections. Speaker after speaker, publication after publication, pundit after pundit, the pattern is almost (but not quite) unanimous. "Gun rights" advocates are among those most likely to tolerate and support greater restrictions on rights of dissent, participation, organization, association, voting, speech, travel and assembly, to say nothing of the rights of prisoners and the criminally accused. Furthermore, the rare exceptions to this pattern are usually found among libertarian thinkers who remain skeptical of rights relating to mass movements that seek to interfere with markets, such as trade unions, environmentalists and consumer groups, the very prototypes and prerequisites of the kind of mass resistance that Second Amendment partisans ostensibly support.

5. Given the Second Amendment partisans' abysmal ignorance and indifference if not outright hostility toward constitutional rights in general, we can rephrase the quotation above in a manner that reflects what gun nuts really believe: "The only right we care about concerns our guns. If we can keep our guns, you can take away the rest of our rights (the 'window dressing') because we scarcely know what they are, how they came about, how they're used or why they're important. As long as we have guns, we won't notice if they're abolished."

Those invoking the Second Amendment as a protection of the rest of the Constitution therefore rank among the greatest threats to constitutional rights that really exist and make a difference.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that citizens with pistols but not seapower, airpower, training, food, water or electricity against any modern military, much less America's, is too cartoonish to merit comment.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's getting late so I'll only address this one. I'm sure that's exactly what the Soviets thought in 1979. How'd that turn out for them? They were practically fighting cavemen! Yet, they couldn't beat the mujahideen. Yes, the afghanis had help from the U.S., but why would it be assumed that resistance would find no such help from many of the State's enemies? (Playing devil's advocate here; I don't think the gov't should be overthrown)
Point is, if military might were all that was needed to win a war, the outcome of many wars would be different.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I felt that it's clear that there are no recreational uses for real WMDs that don't involve hurting other people and other peoples' property. Therefore, there's no reason to sell them to private citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

If the point of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from a government with too much power, then recreational value is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should protection be the only reason for the 2nd Amendment?
But that was the question I was wrestling with before deciding what I did. It would have to be phased in, though, if such weapons were to become available. I don't think most people are rational enough to see the purposes of the 2nd amendment (w/ a great example being thatpfunk)

[/ QUOTE ]
As cool as owning a tank would be, is that really going to be worth much? If the only reason to own a gun would be entertainment, how fast do you think we would ban it? Something that could kill someone else within seconds? Entertainment is not worth that, is it? (especially when we have violent video games and paintball guns)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

4. There is an extremely high correlation between those demanding protection of gun rights and those that seek to limit other constitutional protections.

Give me one example of a time when I have indicated that I desire to limt (by any means other than the amendment process) *any* constitutional protection.

[thatpfunk]

Last,
read the dialogue between BCVP (sp?) and me. he uses illogical and fallacious statements to try to make a point that he later retracts. do not waste your time starting it again.

[MMMMMM]

Our military is great for winning a war; it is not-so-great at controlling a large populace.

If that populace were to be entirely disarmed, however, such a task task would become immeasurably easier.

[thatpfunk]

the military is part of the populace, no?

in our day and age, to me at least, it doesn't seem like a realistic fear. i would be interested to hear opinions on it, but i am not willing to back up my thoughts via argument, they are merely thoughts...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
in our day and age, to me at least, it doesn't seem like a realistic fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it seems quite a remote possibility at present. I also wonder how many others throughout history have felt that way, yet a while later (or a few generations later perhaps), zap!--were being rounded up, herded, and/or enslaved.

If you can't defend yourself, sooner or later someone will try to take advantage of your situation. This goes for individuals, small groups, large groups, and even countries. A disarmed populace is just waiting to be oppressed, robbed, killed, or enslaved (either by outside elements, or by certain elements within that population who are not disarmed).

The history of humankind is a long litany of oppression. If some people can take things from you by force and without resistance, sooner or later they will.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it seems quite a remote possibility at present. I also wonder how many others throughout history have felt that way, yet a while later (or a few generations later perhaps), zap!--were being rounded up, herded, and/or enslaved.

If you can't defend yourself, sooner or later someone will try to take advantage of your situation. This goes for individuals, small groups, large groups, and even countries. A disarmed populace is just waiting to be oppressed, robbed, killed, or enslaved (either by outside elements, or by certain elements within that population who are not disarmed).

The history of humankind is a long litany of oppression. If some people can take things from you by force and without resistance, sooner or later they will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your thought process here, maybe a little more insight into mine:

1) We live in the information age; a first world country would have many problems pulling the wool over the eyes of their population

2) Were it to happen, physical combat/defense would be the least effective way to rebel

3) Globalization instills a vague checks/balances system amongst world powers

My thinking is specifically about the US in this case...

[Chris Alger]

There are about dozen reasons why this has nothing to do with the discussion. Some of them:
1. The weapons the Afghanis used and needed to cripple Soviet forces (various artillery) are already banned by law in the U.S. The most common targets of contemplated gun control legislation (handguns and assault rifles) wouldn't have impeded a Soviet victory.
2. The Soviets weren't fighting a civil war or one for the preservation of the state but an elective war that employed but a fraction of their military might against a country over which they never had complete geographic domination.
3. If you consider the Soviet war against Afghanistan anaologous to a war in the U.S. to perserve constitutional freedoms, then the war was already over before it began.
4. If you believe Afghani success against the Soviets improved political, economic or social conditions in Afghanistan, you're mistaken.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me one example of a time when I have indicated that I desire to limt (by any means other than the amendment process) *any* constitutional protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there are examples where you've indicated your desire to limit constitutional protections by the amendment process, then you've sought to limit constitutional protections.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If that populace were to be entirely disarmed, however, such a task task would become immeasurably easier.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do citizens in the U.S. currently use their personal firearms to limit the government's ability to control them? If they don't, isn't it fair to say that the rights of U.S. citizens exist independently of and without regard to the ownership of firearms?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I felt that it's clear that there are no recreational uses for real WMDs that don't involve hurting other people and other peoples' property. Therefore, there's no reason to sell them to private citizens

[/ QUOTE ]

If the point of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from a government with too much power, then recreational value is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should protection be the only reason for the 2nd Amendment?
But that was the question I was wrestling with before deciding what I did. It would have to be phased in, though, if such weapons were to become available. I don't think most people are rational enough to see the purposes of the 2nd amendment (w/ a great example being thatpfunk)

[/ QUOTE ]
As cool as owning a tank would be, is that really going to be worth much? If the only reason to own a gun would be entertainment, how fast do you think we would ban it? Something that could kill someone else within seconds? Entertainment is not worth that, is it? (especially when we have violent video games and paintball guns)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now where's this only coming from? I don't think the 2nd amendment was ONLY meant for ensuring weapons for protection, and I don't think it only defends weapons for entertainment! And, once again, I'll state that I think those opposed waaaay overestimate how many people would actually own such items. Tanks cost millions. Ammunition costs a lot. Gas (and tanks are gas hogs) costs a lot. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry will have their own tank! And any weapon can kill someone within seconds. Hell, practically anything can be used to kill someone. The fact that an object can be used in a deadly manner shouldn't automatically allow the government to ban its ownership.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There are about dozen reasons why this has nothing to do with the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I believe it was you who said that to even think that a group of people could resist against such a superior military was "cartoonish". I merely pointed out one example in history where that was the case and the less advanced group succeeded. Was I trying to make a direct connection to how such a war within the U.S. would take place? No. Merely pointing out why you were wrong in what you said. And Afghanistan is not the only example in history of an inferior force beating a superior one...

[lastchance]

That's all fine. But tanks are created for the sole purpose of harming other people, not entertainment. The fact that an object is created for the purpose of being used in a deadly manner should make it worth banning.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it was you who said that to even think that a group of people could resist against such a superior military was "cartoonish".

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't say that at all. I said personal firearms would be no use to Americans faced with military-backed tyranny by their own government and that gun ownership has nothing to do with deterring it. I didn't imply that tyranny couldn't be sucessfully resisted, only that armed resistance in the form of handguns versus tanks would either prove doomed or negligible.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
That's all fine. But tanks are created for the sole purpose of harming other people, not entertainment. The fact that an object is created for the purpose of being used in a deadly manner should make it worth banning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this statement is waaaaay oversimplified, and wrong in some aspects.

Tanks were not "solely" created for the purpose of killing. They were created partly to be able to cross trenches and barbed wire in WWI.

By the way, why do you think guns were created? Sport hunting? Of course not! They were created as a weapon of war. Meant to kill. Shall we ban those too? Shall we just ban anything that could be used in a deadly manner? Where does it end?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Actually, I don't think there are any. If anything, I want more freedom, not less. My point was that the *only* proper way to alter the Constitution is the amendment process.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
That's all fine. But tanks are created for the sole purpose of harming other people, not entertainment. The fact that an object is created for the purpose of being used in a deadly manner should make it worth banning.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that the reason for the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizens to perform a check on the military strength of the government, the fact that a weapon is created for the sole purpose of harming people is precisely why it should be allowed, not an argument for why it should be banned.

[lastchance]

We should not ban anything that can be used in a deadly manner, but guns and tanks are made to be deadly.

A gun, a tank, any type of military system is a weapon.

There's a difference, a big difference between something that is made to be deadly than something that can be deadly.

While guns can be used for sport, the purpose of a gun is to kill. It's to put a big bloody hole into someone else's body.

And while guns might, probably shouldn't be banned, they're a helluva lot different because they are that deadly.

[lastchance]

Guess I was talking out of my ass a bit there. Too much embellishment.

And yeah, the reason a gun is made for the express purpose of killing people should be a reason why it's allowed, at the same time, it's a very good reason to ban it.