Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Captainnumnuts]

U-oh, there's that flower thing again. It just doesn't STFU.

 

[phrodeau]

It's a matter of statutory Construction. The full amendment (which IS found in the Bill of Rights, Blue), declares:

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.

Specific and absolute statutory statements always trump more general ones. Thus, the part of the Second Amendment that controls is: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So say the courts.

I'll be honest. I find that somewhat unsatisfactory myself. The way I look at, "militia" can mean many different things. Here, it is must be read in its broadest sense. In that case, the militia becomes everyone who could aid in "the security of a free State." Essentially, pretty much everyone beyond childhood.

So according to the 2nd Amendment, pretty much everyone should be well regulated.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

What's that, Numnuts?

http://www.bobcesca.com/files/2013/08/WonkaTinyPenis.jpg

U-oh, there's that flower thing again. It just doesn't STFU.

 

[coachdb18]

....Clearly, it was anticipated that the government which gives the right also has the authority to regulate the entire scope of “firearms” ownership by civilians.

Constitutional lesson number one, the government never dispensed, nor ever had the power to dispense those rights found enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They were simply a promise from the new government of the United States that these rights would never be challenged (or infringed, using the wording actually used). Obviously, a promise that you won’t infringe on a right that wasn’t yours to dispense doesn’t come with a plan on how you plan then to regulate anything not yours to regulate. The left wing can twist in the wind any number of ways, but those are the facts.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Constitutional lesson number one, the government never dispensed, nor ever had the power to dispense those rights found enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They were simply a promise from the new government of the United States that these rights would never be challenged (or infringed, using the wording actually used). Obviously, a promise that you won’t infringe on a right that wasn’t yours to dispense doesn’t come with a plan on how you plan then to regulate anything not yours to regulate. The left wing can twist in the wind any number of ways, but those are the facts.

Who's ass did you pull that shit out of?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So according to the 2nd Amendment, pretty much everyone should be well regulated.

Meaning well trained in how to use their weapons which the 2nd goes on to confirm and protect their individual right to have.

What's that, Numnuts?

http://www.bobcesca.com/files/2013/08/WonkaTinyPenis.jpg

Awwww...can't come up with anything but logical fallacies so must resort to name calling.

LOL you're even more pathetic than I first thought.

Who's ass did you pull that shit out of?

The founding fathers???

You should read a history book or at least watch a documentary about it sometime.

Or just read the wording of the US Constitution...pretty fucking blatant.

But hey that's HARD...so no expectations of you coming off your USSA fantasy.

 

[KimGordon67]

Treating the constitution as though its some sort of unalienable omniscient entity that can never be incorrect or changed is really culty. Jefferson himself said you need a new constitution every 15 years to keep up with change. You are allowed to disagree with the constitution you know. Its not some infallible holy text.

In the case of guns (and the implication that the 2nd doesn't allow for any tighter gun control than already exists) you literally have an amendment that is demonstrably causing more harm than good to the US population but you want to keep the status quo because "muh constitution".

The simplicity is mind boggling.

It's kind of intriguing how the Constitution takes on this Biblical aspect.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's kind of intriguing how the Constitution takes on this Biblical aspect.

That's generally only in the minds of those who don't understand it or US culture/history.

For most it's just a legal document....for ardent left wing Democrats and "progressive" types it's something to be scorned, an outdated document that needs to be gotten rid of.

 

[KimGordon67]

That's generally only in the minds of those who don't understand it or US culture/history.

No, it really isn't. This notion that whatever is in the Constitution cannot be changed, and is effectively the word from some external force (whether you call that 'God' or 'natural rights') has a definite level of religious-type fervour.

Our founding document is pretty open to interpretation, complicated by the fact that there's different versions in different languages, and we're constantly trying to nut out what the interpretations mean in different contexts. But we're aware that interpreting it is a process, and it's process that changes depending on what you're talking about ... and, indeed, whatever point in time we are currently at. But we don't approach it as thought it's written in stone - in fact, it's commonly referred to as a 'living document'.

 

[coachdb18]

That's generally only in the minds of those who don't understand it or US culture/history.

For most it's just a legal document....for ardent left wing Democrats and "progressive" types it's something to be scorned, an outdated document that needs to be gotten rid of.

What's generally not understood well by foreigners, is that freedom and the defense of ones person came well before the Constitution. The Constitution did nothing to dispense the right of self defense to the people of the us, it simply recognized that pre-existing right, and promised not to infringe upon it. The right of self defense was well recognized by the Founders as being a basic human right, and their writings attest to the fact that they were moral and largely Freemason Christians who argued the placement of Natural Law into the Constitution, but as a practical matter ended up adding the Bill of Rights to it. That's why even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would still not repeal the pre-existing right. It would merely roll back a promise made, much as the Indian treaties promises did in that later time.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, it really isn't. This notion that whatever is in the Constitution cannot be changed, and is effectively the word from some external force (whether you call that 'God' or 'natural rights') has a definite level of religious-type fervour.

Yea and the idea that people are actually like that is the fantasy......of all the flag waving M'uricans I've run into I've never met one who thinks the Constitution cannot be changed.

In fact most if damn near not all US citizens understand that there is an amendment process to change our Constitution.

Our founding document is pretty open to interpretation, complicated by the fact that there's different versions in different languages, and we're constantly trying to nut out what the interpretations mean in different contexts. But we're aware that interpreting it is a process, and it's process that changes depending on what you're talking about ... and, indeed, whatever point in time we are currently at. But we don't approach it as thought it's written in stone - in fact, it's commonly referred to as a 'living document'.

Neither do USA'nians.....that's why we have a supreme court.

The biggest disconnect in US politics with it's people is congress/POTUS....not the Constitution/SCOTUS.

For some reason we think POTUS is some god King that does and gets whatever he wants and Congress is just a bunch of innocent powerless victims that aren't at all responsible for the legislative process in any way.

 

[KimGordon67]

What's generally not understood well by foreigners, is that freedom and the defense of ones person came well before the Constitution. The Constitution did nothing to dispense the right of self defense to the people of the us, it simply recognized that pre-existing right, and promised not to infringe upon it. The right of self defense was well recognized by the Founders as being a basic human right, and their writings attest to the fact that they were moral and largely Freemason Christians who argued the placement of Natural Law into the Constitution, but as a practical matter ended up adding the Bill of Rights to it.

'The right to self defence' =/= 'the right to own a gun'.

As I've argued extensively before, I view the hard regulation of gun ownership as an integral part of my right to self defence, because I know that my assailants aren't carrying guns.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Constitution did nothing to dispense the right of self defense to the people of the us, it simply recognized that pre-existing right, and promised not to infringe upon it.

That concept is just beyond the god state worshiping lefties.....

It's really not worth trying to explain that to someone who wants the state micromanaging every aspect of their life right down to their thoughts and paying a premium for the privilege.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yea and the idea that people are actually like that is the fantasy......of all the flag waving M'uricans I've run into I've never met one who thinks the Constitution cannot be changed.

In fact most if damn near not all US citizens understand that there is an amendment process to change our Constitution.



Neither do USA'nians.....that's why we have a supreme court.

The biggest disconnect in US politics with it's people is congress/POTUS....not the Constitution/SCOTUS.

For some reason we think POTUS is some god King that does and gets whatever he wants and Congress is just a bunch of innocent powerless victims that aren't at all responsible for the legislative process in any way.

... and yet every time this argument comes up, a bunch of people say 'it's in the Constitution - you can't argue with it', or words to that effect.

 

[BotanyBoy]

'The right to self defence' =/= 'the right to own a gun'.

In the 21st century and for the last several hundred years it has.

As I've argued extensively before, I view the hard regulation of gun ownership as an integral part of my right to self defence, because I know that my assailants aren't carrying guns.

You want to THINK they aren't, because government saying so is your safety blanket.

Reality is you don't have a fucking clue, you're just playing odds, because bad guys have guns in your country too, if not guns other weapons a gun would be awfully handy in dispatching.

 

[KimGordon67]

In the 21st century and for the last several hundred years it has.



You want to THINK they aren't, because government saying so is your safety blanket.

Reality is you don't have a fucking clue, you're just playing odds, because bad guys have guns in your country too, if not guns other weapons a gun would be awfully handy in dispatching.

Trust me, if guns enter the equation here, it's markedly unusual. Seriously. Every time my safety has been threatened, the possibility the guy might have a gun hasn't even vaguely entered my head, and that's universal here.

 

[BotanyBoy]

... and yet every time this argument comes up, a bunch of people say 'it's in the Constitution - you can't argue with it', or words to that effect.

More to the effect "It's protected by the Constitution, and you don't have the numbers to do anything about it." which is true. You can argue with it, but it isn't going anywhere.

Thankfully the anti-civil rights lefties just don't have the numbers in the US to go shit canning the Bill of Rights.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Trust me, if guns enter the equation here, it's markedly unusual. Seriously. Every time my safety has been threatened, the possibility the guy might have a gun hasn't even vaguely entered my head, and that's universal here.

But it happens...despite your bulletproof faith in the governments ability to protect you, it happens.

So do other weapons.

You trust your government to protect you.

I know mine wont even try...the best I could hope for is a cold case file after the fact.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I was responding to Numnuts.

What, you saw "Tiny Penis" and just assumed it was about you lol?

I'm not sure you have a dick, to be honest. Just a gun.

Awwww...can't come up with anything but logical fallacies so must resort to name calling.

LOL you're even more pathetic than I first thought.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I was responding to Numnuts.

What, you saw "Tiny Penis" and just assumed it was about you lol?

I'm not sure you have a dick, to be honest. Just a gun.

I know...and it was still stupid, childish and lacking any substance.

Nope.

It's there it just doesn't do much...because who wants to risk disease to wind up crucified in family court?

LOL....partnering up is one of the DUMBEST things you can do in the USA.

All negative consequences across the board.

Nah...gun is on the desk, and in the cupboard, fridge, couch, next to the toilets, bed and I also have a pair of Glocks out in the garage, one in the tool box and the other on the 4 wheeler.

 

[KimGordon67]

But it happens...despite your bulletproof faith in the governments ability to protect you, it happens.

So do other weapons.

You trust your government to protect you.

I know mine wont even try...the best I could hope for is a cold case file after the fact.

In what universe did I say I trust the government to protect me. I trust myself (and sometimes the person I love) to protect me. I have no idea where you got this idea that I have a 'bulletproof faith' in the government's protection, but it certainly wasn't from anything I said. I can't actually think of an instance in which my safety has been threatened that involved the police or any other government agency - my property, maybe, but not my safety.

 

[KimGordon67]

Actual research

Some interesting research on the use of guns for self defence - My_I, you might want to take a look at these summaries.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In what universe did I say I trust the government to protect me.

Do you not rely on their protection in the form of regulation that prohibits you from arming yourself with the most effective tools for such a task?

I trust myself (and sometimes the person I love) to protect me.

WOW....you two must be some BAD ASS Neo types eh??

https://media.giphy.com/media/gNzDiRiZS3SXS/giphy.gif

have no idea where you got this idea that I have a 'bulletproof faith' in the government's protection, but it certainly wasn't from anything I said.

The fact that you support government prohibition of the means of self defense.

You rely on that to feel safe....FEEL safe.

I can't actually think of an instance in which my safety has been threatened that involved the police or any other government agency - my property, maybe, but not my safety.

Nobody ever thinks it's going to happen to them.

But it happens.....so are you ready to secure yourself and your loved one should an armed threat present itself?

Or are you relying on government prohibition of guns and the police to protect you?

 

[KimGordon67]

Some interesting research on the use of guns for self defence - My_I, you might want to take a look at these summaries.

Here's a handy report that summarises the findings in a more readable form.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Some interesting research on the use of guns for self defence - My_I, you might want to take a look at these summaries.

Not really a less biased source.....