Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[TheWall]

I have a modest proposal.
Amputate everyone's hands.

[Teallaura]

Yeah about that whole only recently incorporated thing president Adams bought his own galleon in the 1700s.

Um, TW, a galleon is a ship - and not illegal to own at the time. Now, had he bought a cannon when his state said it was illegal and the Supreme Court agreed with him, you'd have an argument - but that isn't what actually happened, is it? Until incorporation, the Supreme court had consistently found that states did in fact have the right to regulate gun ownership and the second amendment did not apply to the states.

I'm not so sure gun owners should have been so happy about incorporation - it left most regulation in place so the question now becomes can the Federal government similarly regulate? If so, it undermines the second amendment. But that's just speculation for the moment.

[rogue06]

And on what planet would manufacturers not also be owners? The odds that most manufacturers aren't also members (corporate and individual) are next to nil.

SL's argument is stupid - this isn't an improvement.

That some of the executives/owners of manufacturing companies also happen to own firearms hardly invalidates my point. Their numbers are minuscule compared to the rest of the membership and given that the NRA has upon occasion not opposed legislation that would hurt rather than benefit manufacturers (but benefits typical owners) demonstrates that they don't have undue influence.

[Teallaura]

Merely responding to a question. Not forwarding it as a reason.

Okay, understood.

[Mountain Man]

For some people, probably many of you here, it has to affect you personally before you actually allow yourself to care and stop the stupid arguments. I'll bet if you had a family member killed or wounded at such an event, you couldn't in good conscience continue arguing in favor of less regulations.

Sure I could, because my arguments are driven by logic and reason and not my emotions at any given moment. I would certainly be upset if someone close to me was the victim of any kind of violence, be it gun, knife, run down by a car, or simply beat by someone's fists, but I wouldn't immediately call for an irrational banning of whatever weapon happened to be used, a solution that wouldn't even make sense in the case of an unarmed attacker. If anything, it would solidify my conviction that people should be allowed to own and carry the best means of protecting themselves so that they don't become victims, too.

[rogue06]

I have a modest proposal.
Amputate everyone's hands.

Well the Constitution does say we have the right to bear arms but is silent about hands...

[Teallaura]

That some of the executives/owners of manufacturing companies also happen to own firearms hardly invalidates my point. Their numbers are minuscule compared to the rest of the membership and given that the NRA has not opposed legislation that would hurt rather than benefit manufacturers (but benefits typical owners) demonstrates that they don't have undue influence.

Eh, I think you'd need a lot more to support that contention but I only took issue with the premise that manufacturers are not at all represented by the NRA. I don't have an issue with 'undue influence' although I'd dispute no influence. I suspect the manufacturers have considerable influence and vise versa. Being that they are both part of the same iron triangle makes the opposite conclusion untenable.

For the conspiracy portion, you'd have to talk to SL. Evidently he knows a great deal about their criminal activities...

[Mountain Man]

Love of guns had nothing to do with this. No love of any sort involved, only hatred and evil.

I wonder if liberals would feel better if this guy had simply driven a ten-ton truck the crowd instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...nglais-vehicle

[Sparko]

If the Constitution is amended to repeal that right then no, he is no longer law abiding when he resists. The premise is the hypothetical repeal, remember?

Also, the second wasn't incorporated until fairly recently - most of this wasn't actually true until then. Until incorporation, states had every right to regulate and even to abolish. None of them were politically dumb enough for a complete abolition although a few came close, however.

The question was way would a "law abiding" citizen use his guns to prevent the government from taking them away. Of course he would not be "law abiding" if they changed the constitution and made guns illegal, but the owner would still believe that the constitution never gave the government the right to take away his right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment just says that the government can't infringe on his right. You can take that away but that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have the right to own a gun. If the government tried to remove his guns, he would be fighting an unjust law.

You would have gun owners across the country using their guns to protect their right to own guns when they came to remove them.

IF you could actually talk the cops or the ATF into actually complying with the "law" and confiscate the guns. I think most would ignore the new law.

[Sparko]

I have a modest proposal.
Amputate everyone's hands.

You have been hanging around Zymologist too long.

[rogue06]

I admit I don't care much for the NRA - but lobbying is perfectly legal. If you can prove bribery, that is illegal and both the NRA and the congressmen in question are subject to legal penalty.

This is an argument from hate - what good do you really think it does besides flag waving for abolition?

I respect them for when a couple decades back several spurious quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers were being circulated by Second Amendment supporters^[1] they spent a great deal of time and effort refuting them (now these arguments rarely ever surface). To me that is a strong indication that they want to concentrate on the facts rather than relying on inaccurate propaganda (something that many advocacy groups for various issues don't bother with).






1. That is not to say that there aren't a number of legitimate quotes from them concerning firearm ownership and the 2A.

[Sparko]

I think we need to ban Teal from Alabamastan. We can't have a gun control supporter living in Alabama. It's unamerican!

Burn the Witch!!!

[rogue06]

Eh, I think you'd need a lot more to support that contention but I only took issue with the premise that manufacturers are not at all represented by the NRA. I don't have an issue with 'undue influence' although I'd dispute no influence. I suspect the manufacturers have considerable influence and vise versa. Being that they are both part of the same iron triangle makes the opposite conclusion untenable.

For the conspiracy portion, you'd have to talk to SL. Evidently he knows a great deal about their criminal activities...

I never said they have absolutely no influence but rather they are a lobby for gun owners in contrast to Starlight's claim that they are a nothing but a tool of the manufacturers.

[Teallaura]

The question was way would a "law abiding" citizen use his guns to prevent the government from taking them away. Of course he would not be "law abiding" if they changed the constitution and made guns illegal, but the owner would still believe that the constitution never gave the government the right to take away his right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment just says that the government can't infringe on his right. You can take that away but that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have the right to own a gun. If the government tried to remove his guns, he would be fighting an unjust law.

You would have gun owners across the country using their guns to protect their right to own guns when they came to remove them.

IF you could actually talk the cops or the ATF into actually complying with the "law" and confiscate the guns. I think most would ignore the new law.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - no, you don't get to pretend rights exist that it specifically denies, even if that denial is by amendment. So at that point, they are no longer law abiding in any sense - they are criminals. Any belief to the contrary is mere self-justification and has no basis in reality.

FYI - I oppose abolition. I'd prefer it but I can't justify it. I am not in favor of repealing the second (dis-incorporating, not repealing).

[Teallaura]

I never said they have absolutely no influence but rather they are a lobby for gun owners in contrast to Starlight's claim that they are a nothing but a tool of the manufacturers.

Okay - I think you overdid the initial statement but I also think we agree more than disagree at this point.