Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Which states that if you can commit suicide with a weapon, you can't use it for self defense
    Where does the Constitution state that?
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      I'm talking about my constitutionally-protected right to bear arms of any type, as the constitution doesn't differentiate.

      No, you specifically said firearms:

      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Are firearms not allowed because the shooter may kill themselves with them while defending themselves?
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #78
        Shulman: "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

        He then asks this question; "Does that mean that only well-schooled electorate - high school graduates, say - are the only ones with the right to keep and read books?"

        Copperud: "There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #79
          We should perhaps focus on the illegal activities that are taking place,
          Like gangs shooting fully automatic weapons into the city night, which is illegal.
          I know it's far more entertaining to rattle our gums about the bill of rights etc.
          But these punks are in violation of numerous federal, state and local ordinances but nothing is being done to round them up and make the neighborhoods safe, so what other choice do the citizens have but to arm up?
          You Anti gun nut jobs don't have a clue what it is like to live in a crime infested gangland environment where the thugs are armed to the teeth and the mayor and city council want to kiss their butts because they control a very lucrative drug market and donate money to them.
          You wouldn't last five minutes in Oakland or East LA.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Nichols View Post
            No, you specifically said firearms:
            And the constitution says arms, doesn't it?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              But that's the point is isn't.

              Where in the constitution is it specified what sort of weapon requires "paperwork" ?

              I know from previous discussions it mentions a "well regulated militia" somewhere - and in the 18th century that meant battalions, rifles and a couple of cannon.
              Battalions? You overestimate the size of colonial towns. A militia might have a cannon or could be five joes with some heirloom Kentucky Long Rifles that hunted together.
              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Are firearms not allowed because the shooter may kill themselves with them while defending themselves?
                What about the rest of the city? Are you willing to end the lives of the entire city just because you did not want to get robed? What if the guy robing you dose not know you have a nuke on you or dose not care (perhaps thinks your bluffing).

                So you detonate the nuke, exercising your right, but now you have committed worse, as you now killed hundreds if not thousands of Innocent people with your right to carry a nuke.

                Or perhaps you committed suicide having no longer the will to live and you had a nuke... after all some ones to use one eventually in that manor. Firearms generally do not wipe out entire towns when used, even a 406mm shell wont level a village when used. Nor do they leave the area dangerous to live in for a few years after words.

                Committing suicide with a fire arm generally only effects the person doing it, using a nuke can affect hundreds of thousands.

                Or heaven forbid some one decides that the leaders in Washington has to go... a machine gun is one thing but not much one can do to defend your self from getting vaporized.

                Though the only thing that I can see that would limit these kinds of issues is the shear cost of said items...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
                  What about the rest of the city? Are you willing to end the lives of the entire city just because you did not want to get robed? What if the guy robing you dose not know you have a nuke on you or dose not care (perhaps thinks your bluffing).

                  So you detonate the nuke, exercising your right, but now you have committed worse, as you now killed hundreds if not thousands of Innocent people with your right to carry a nuke.

                  Or perhaps you committed suicide having no longer the will to live and you had a nuke... after all some ones to use one eventually in that manor. Firearms generally do not wipe out entire towns when used, even a 406mm shell wont level a village when used. Nor do they leave the area dangerous to live in for a few years after words.

                  Committing suicide with a fire arm generally only effects the person doing it, using a nuke can affect hundreds of thousands.

                  Or heaven forbid some one decides that the leaders in Washington has to go... a machine gun is one thing but not much one can do to defend your self from getting vaporized.

                  Though the only thing that I can see that would limit these kinds of issues is the shear cost of said items...
                  Sure, it makes sense to limit such weapons. Only an insane person would demand we take the constitution literally in all cases, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, explosives, biological agents, MANPADS, etc. But that's just my point - we don't take the constitution literally. We interpret just how far we think certain rights extend, such as free speech. The same goes towards "bearing arms" - certain arms, unknown to the founders, are "obviously" protected, while other arms, unknown to the founders, are "obviously" not protected.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Um you know its the Bill of Rights that gives us the right to bear arms, Right?
                    Credo quia absurdum.


                    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                      Um you know its the Bill of Rights that gives us the right to bear arms, Right?
                      You know the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution, right?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                        Um you know its the Bill of Rights that gives us the right to bear arms, Right?
                        Technically, the Right to bear arms is recognized in the bill of rights. It is not "given".
                        The point is that it is a right that we possess inherently and cannot be given, or taken away, by the government. We have the right whether or not the government even exists.
                        The same is true with the other personal rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          Technically, the Right to bear arms is recognized in the bill of rights. It is not "given".
                          The point is that it is a right that we possess inherently and cannot be given, or taken away, by the government. We have the right whether or not the government even exists.
                          The same is true with the other personal rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.
                          So then, it seems my right to possess nuclear arms is actually a natural right, and the government is just intruding where it doesn't belong.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            So then, it seems my right to possess nuclear arms is actually a natural right, and the government is just intruding where it doesn't belong.
                            No, you have the right to defend yourself, you do not have a right to kill thousands of others.
                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                              No, you have the right to defend yourself, you do not have a right to kill thousands of others.
                              So as long as you live in a very rural area, then nuclear weapons are fine for self defense.

                              Don't really remember the constitution saying anything about the risk to others in the 2nd amendment, though...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                So then, it seems my right to possess nuclear arms is actually a natural right, and the government is just intruding where it doesn't belong.
                                Sorry.
                                Self defense is limited to the threat.
                                As I said before, reasonable restrictions by the state are permissible.
                                I gave the link and the quote from the Heller decision. As I said before, it explicitly states the 2nd amendment, like all other rights, is not unlimited.
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X