Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    So as long as you live in a very rural area, then nuclear weapons are fine for self defense.
    Actually......no.

    It doesn't matter how rural you are, the residue radiation will still kill thousands eventually.
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
      (...) That's the entire point after all. Limit the government's power by making the people stronger. Not individually of course but as a whole.
      I prefer to have superior power to control the actions of my government by actually limiting the size of the nation state.

      Practically - "my government" is the Flemish government, which amounts to an electorate of some 6 million - a fair bit easier to exercise control over that, than one of 300 million like you have guys over there

      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
      I see your point. I like the idea of me having a gun and others not to.
      I didn't think you were arguing that all guns be removed, sorry if I wasn't more clear. Sometimes work interrupts my posting.
      No prob, we've been over the same argument several times now, I think we both know each other's pov by now.
      Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        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.
        Exactly. The right is not unlimited. And it takes the people and the courts to interpret how limited it is and what "reasonable" actually means. The constitution and its amendments are not inherently obvious documents that can simply be taken as written.

        When it comes to the 2nd amendment, preventing you from bearing arms is entirely constitutional, even when it goes against the strict language of the document.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
          Actually......no.

          It doesn't matter how rural you are, the residue radiation will still kill thousands eventually.
          Where does the constitution say it only applies to arms that can't kill indiscriminately?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Where does the constitution say it only applies to arms that can't kill indiscriminately?

            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
              We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
              So it doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. Gotcha.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                So it doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution. Gotcha.
                "Gotcha"?

                I quoted the Preamble which is the opening statement of the Constitution.

                You owning a nuclear weapon for "self defense" would not 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense' or 'promote the general welfare of the people'.

                You would be killing thousands of innocent people.

                Which leads to the next question:

                Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?
                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                  "Gotcha"?

                  I quoted the Preamble which is the opening statement of the Constitution.

                  You owning a nuclear weapon for "self defense" would not 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense' or 'promote the general welfare of the people'.

                  You would be killing thousands of innocent people.

                  Which leads to the next question:

                  Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?
                  But by owning the weapon I'm not killing anyone, just like I'm not shooting anyone with my shotgun just by owning it.

                  And since there is nothing in the constitution saying I cannot own a nuclear weapon - and the 2nd amendment confirms I possess the right to bear arms with no regard to their nature - it comes to you to prove that the constitution says nuclear arms are a no-no while other arms are allowed.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    - it comes to you to prove that the constitution says nuclear arms are a no-no while other arms are allowed.
                    Actually the burden of proof is on you. I answered with the Preamble, you need to show how you owning a nuclear weapon would:

                    1. Establish justice.
                    2. Insure domestic tranquility.
                    3. Provide for the common defense.
                    4. Promote the general welfare of the people.

                    Also answer this question that I asked earlier:

                    Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • You guys may find this article thought provoking.

                      http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...-be-registered.

                      So taken in that respect if DoD can make his own...
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        Actually the burden of proof is on you. I answered with the Preamble, you need to show how you owning a nuclear weapon would:

                        1. Establish justice.
                        2. Insure domestic tranquility.
                        3. Provide for the common defense.
                        4. Promote the general welfare of the people.
                        The preamble didn't answer the question.

                        If you want, I could provide some very subjective but valid answers to your questions, but that results in (again) people interpreting meaning, and still does nothing to explain why progressives want to subvert the constitution by denying people's right to bear arms.

                        Also answer this question that I asked earlier:

                        Where does it say in the Constitution that you can indiscriminately kill anyone?
                        So it doesn't say you can, yet it doesn't say you can't own the means to possibly do so either. I can indiscriminately kill with many things which are not banned, making it a moot point. Unless you believe that something that can indiscriminately kill is not covered by the constitution?

                        Comment


                        • I have to ask what's the point of your whole nuclear weapons argument? Its clear you don't actually want one. Are you just trying to get somebody to admit that you shouldn't own one so you can say "See they really do believe in limitations. They're hypocrites!"? I'm legitimately curious.
                          "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                            I have to ask what's the point of your whole nuclear weapons argument? Its clear you don't actually want one. Are you just trying to get somebody to admit that you shouldn't own one so you can say "See they really do believe in limitations. They're hypocrites!"? I'm legitimately curious.


                            The Heller decision, which I quoted earlier, explicitly addresses this issue saying that the 2nd Amendment, like other rights, is not unlimited.

                            2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
                            https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


                            This completely resolves the questions regarding nukes.
                            They can be prohibited and such a prohibition would not violate the 2nd Amendment.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              This completely resolves the questions regarding nukes.
                              They can be prohibited and such a prohibition would not violate the 2nd Amendment.
                              I know that. I was asking why he's pushing that particular line of reasoning so hard. Doesn't quite make sense to me.
                              "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                                I have to ask what's the point of your whole nuclear weapons argument? Its clear you don't actually want one. Are you just trying to get somebody to admit that you shouldn't own one so you can say "See they really do believe in limitations. They're hypocrites!"? I'm legitimately curious.
                                Simply pointing out that the constitution is never taken literally by any major group in America. However, there are many who believe there is no interpretation done regarding the constitution - they see interpretation as the purview of activist judges and progressives.

                                Simply put, the constitutionality of arms control is dependent upon an individuals interpretation of the constitution and their political views mixed together. We look at places like Oakland and think "Jesus, a revolver for self defense makes sense", but the same person can also think "You know, having any story capable of selling any arm at will doesn't seem very smart...".

                                I'm a staunch supporter of gun ownership. But there are plenty of gun owners who don't recognize the logical failings frequently employed in the arguments used to justify that right. I dislike hypocrisy, especially when it's supporting my own cause.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X