Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes, the right to bear arms is not being infringed because a person is still free to bear arms.  And a ban isn't taking anything away anyway, it is simply limiting what is available for purchase.  You can't take away what wasn't owned in the first place.

I think you're still having problems with the term "infringed".

I happen to think the problem lies with you and an overly liberal definition of the word.

Yeah, that's me.  Of course, I am in good company.  Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry...All of these were dangerously liberal about these sorts of things.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

[AFK]

But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.

There were?  Link?

[AFK]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

And you still can.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, the Alien & Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, and were written before the ink was dry on the constitution.

Do you agree with those laws?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Does my inability to privately own a nuclear bomb infringe my right to bear arms? I realize that i publically own several via the us military. Nunchaku are illegal in massachusetts. While i think it a silly restriction i dont feel my rights are infringed there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

And you still can.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.

I see.  So now you want to ban the sale of legal items?  There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then. 

[AFK]

But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.

There were?  Link?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397

American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Does my inability to privately own a nuclear bomb infringe my right to bear arms? I realize that i publically own several via the us military. Nunchaku are illegal in massachusetts. While i think it a silly restriction i dont feel my rights are infringed there.

1.  By my standards, if you can afford a nuke, go nuts.  Better get it before some hippie has a hissy fit.  Of course, every nation on Earth, and international law, separates gas, germs, and nukes from "arms".  Silly fuckers.

2.  Why would nunchaku be illegal?  They're just two sticks and string.  Jesus H Christ.

[AFK]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

And you still can.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.

I see.  So now you want to ban the sale of legal items?  There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.

That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT.  There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.

There were?  Link?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397

American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY

That's an op-ed.  Also, the cowboy days were a little after the founders.  And the colonies predated the constitution.  Nothing there talks about the period we're describing, which is the era immediately following the creation of the US constitution.

Also, the bolded part kind of wrecks your argument.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X.  You haven't taken anything away from him.  He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it.  No infringement.

The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you".  It says you can have them.

So, yeah, it's infringement.

And you still can.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.

I see.  So now you want to ban the sale of legal items?  There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.

That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT.  There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.

That part of the constitution ALLOWED the US to ban DDT.  But we aren't talking about pesticides, we're talking about firearms which are legal to own, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.  I cannot even own DDT, and no amendment says I can (amendment X doesn't applym as banning DDT is a power granted under commerce) in the face of federal law.  Ergo, I cannot buy it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Damned if i know. I expect it resulted from tmnt some kids hopped up on sugar a hospital visit and some concerned parents.

[AFK]

But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.

There were?  Link?

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397

American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY

That's an op-ed.  Also, the cowboy days were a little after the founders.  And the colonies predated the constitution.  Nothing there talks about the period we're describing, which is the era immediately following the creation of the US constitution.

Also, the bolded part kind of wrecks your argument.

Ah, but it doesn't.  The right recognized, but not created....which means that right existed in those earlier days above when there were gun regulations, which seems to suggest that it was never conceived that the right to bear arms and gun regulations were mutually exclusive ideas.  It seems like it has been an accepted concept for quite some time, until the 2nd Amendment became twisted into a religion.