Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
The fact they could not envision what was coming can in fact mean that they did not consider the potential of trying to maintain the rights they proposed in said environments. In fact, that is more likely than the idea they considered all possible scenarios and went forward fully aware of the sort of situations we face today. In fact, I do believe that when Ben Franklin made clear that our system of government was only suitable for a MORAL people, he was getting a glimpse of what we face today - a society where morality has in many ways collapsed. For example, you can't have free access to guns when a significant percentage of the general population has no respect for life or the law, without also reaping carnage on the scale we are seeing.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOne could argue that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the telegraph much less radio, TV, phones, the internet, wifi... when they wrote the First Amendment so free speech only covers what is said to people in your physical presence or written by quill or printed by a hand-powered printing press. After all, such things greatly enable say the widespread dissemination of libelous and slanderous statements. Someone can commit treason, endangering the entire nation by posting highly classified material that can be seen worldwide in an instance.
Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-07-2021, 02:40 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
It is when people are being gunned down daily by that misuse. Rights can in fact be lost. Just ask any Felon.
When do you suppose the cost in lives lost outweighs the potential benefit of the 2nd Amendment.
- 3 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Any freedom or right can (and will be) be misused, Jim. That is no reason to eliminate it.
When do you suppose the cost in lives lost outweighs the potential benefit of the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-07-2021, 02:16 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
The thing you don't seem to appreciate is that these arguments could apply to any freedom. The other thing you don't seem to appreciate is that the Second Amendment guarantees us the means to defend every other right. Disarm the citizens, and stripping them of their other rights becomes trivial.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.
So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.
I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.
Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.
Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
I have my eye on a 45cal. derringer. Probably will beak my hand though...
https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-4...ger-perfected/
Since you have to manually pull back the hammer to fire the second round, a little kick is not really an issue.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Don't be silly. I'm not talking about the text of the amendment. I'm talking about the moral responsibility that is required to have and use a lethal weapon safely. Sure, you can just give guns out willy nilly, but that is morally irresponsible unless the population you give them to knows how to use them has the integrity and character to only use them as can be morally justified.
So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.
I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.
Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.
Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
It implies no such thing, anymore that the 1st Amendment does.
So I'm speaking in the abstract about what is required for the existence of the 2nd amendment not to result in the sort of nearly daily mass shooting events we are having now.
I'm of the opinion the risk/benefit ratio has long ago been shown to be far too large to consider the 2nd amendment useful to our society as it is now in play. We need strict controls on who qualifies for such weapons where those controls are designed and moderated by a non-political body. The criteria needs to be no history of violence, no felonies, as well as of sound mind psychologically. And their need to be be good ways of revoking such a license if the person becomes unstable mentally, or commits a felony or act of violence.
Yes, I know criminals wont follow the rules, which is why possession of an illegal firearm needs to have very strict penalties. If you are not licensed and/or the gun is not registered, or you are not under legitimate supervision (e.g. in training or a licensed father with his kids etc), off to jail you go.
Yeah, I know there are lots of fears as to how politicians might use those restraints to control access to guns for other reasons, but it's out of control. If you have better ideas about how to bring it under control, feel free to propose them. But doing nothing is becoming more and more untenable.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-07-2021, 12:55 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
The right to bear arms implies a population with enough integrity and sanity to be able to handle that responsibility. For whatever the reason, we seem to have left that place behind.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf you don't like guns, don't own a gun. Simple.
I'm not hopeful there is any real solution to the crazies our there shooting up people though. The 2nd amendment has allowed so many guns to be out there that reigning them in would be a herculean task. That is why I lamented it has become our curse. There probably isn't a way to stop the carnage. But it would be nice of we tried.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
You do know that most people killed with a firearm are killed with a pistol. Would you ban those too?
The right to bear arms implies a population with enough integrity and sanity to be able to handle that responsibility. For whatever the reason, we seem to have left that place behind.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe closest I have is a .38 derringer. Great pocket pistol.
https://www.bondarms.com/bond-arms-4...ger-perfected/
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
92 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
294 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
362 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Leave a comment: